The Costliest Midterm Election Ever

The 1998 midterm elections were the most expensive off-year elections in history. Federal Election Committee reports show that as of October 14, 1998 spending was already approaching $1 billion. About 60 percent of that money was raised and spent by individual candidates. The other 40 percent came from the Democratic and Republican parties. Of the money raised by individual candidates, 57 percent came from solicited contributions, 29 percent from political action committees (PACs) and 8 percent in loans by the candidates to their own campaigns. What made this campaign the costliest midterm election ever was the great increase in party fundraising and expenditures in the form of "hard" and "soft" money contributions to races.[17]

The financial advantage that incumbents had over challengers was two-and-a-half to one in the Senate, and an even greater four-to-one advantage in the House. In the Senate, the average incumbent raised $4.6 million and as opposed to $1.9 million for the average challenger through September 14. The average House incumbent raised $733,000 compared to $184,000 for the average challenger. This meant that incumbents had more resources to buy television advertising, build a larger organizational base for the campaign and send out more direct mail literature to constituents. As in previous elections, challengers who did not have competitive resources were at a real disadvantage. The fact that 98.5 percent of House incumbents and 89.7 percent of Senate incumbents won should not be surprising given the the fundraising and expenditure advantage that was enjoyed by incumbents.[18]

Interestingly enough, Senate incumbent Alphonse D'Amato (R) who raised and spent over $20 million, more than anyone else, lost to Charles Schumer (D) who raised and spent about two-thirds of that total. Still, Schumer's fundraising total should not be sneezed at. He raised more money than any other Senate challenger in history, with the exception of Oliver North. In Illinois, Peter Fitzgerald a Republican, running for the Senate in Illinois defeated incumbent Democrat Carol Moseley-Braun, in part, by raising and spending almost twice as much money as her.[19]

The largest discrepancy between an incumbent and challenger was the race in Georgia's 6th District between the Republican Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and his challenger, Democrat Gary Pelphrey. By the middle of September, the Speaker had raised $6.5 million compared to $ 10,000 for Pelphrey, a ratio of 650 to 1. Not surprisingly, Gingrich won the election in a landslide. [20]

In contrast, campaign finance reform advocate, Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin limited his own spending against the advice of party leaders. Feingold ran his campaign on the principle of not taking "soft"money contributions. As the election approached, Democrat Feinaold's broad lead diminished but he was able to hang on to victory against Republican Congressman, Mark Neumann winning 51 percent of the vote. If Feingold had been defeated, it would have symbolized a greater defeat for the campaign finance reform movement.

The 1998 election will be remembered as one in which parties made a stronger financial contribution to campaigns than in any midterm election in nearly three decades. Party contributions, helped make a difference in the Nevada, California, New York, North Carolina and Washington Senate races. Oddly enough, the massive amounts spent in Senate races were not by Republicans but by Democrats, the same party which voted down the line for campaign finance reform in the last Congress. In a final twist of irony, if Democratic campaign finance reform been in place this year, the types of contributions that aided five Democrats to win re-election would have been illegal. If Republicans had won the five additional seats, then those additional votes could have been used to cut off unlimited debate in the Senate putting Democrats at a great legislative disadvantage.