Thanks to Senator Les Ihara for pointing out that the Campaign Spending Commission’s Twitter feed includes notices of upcoming fundraisers filed by candidates. It’s a simple way to keep track of these events in the political world.
Recent tweets, for example, have included a January 17 fundraiser for Hawaii Republicans for Life, controversial City Council member Tom Berg’s $50 event on February 23 at the Aloha Tower Marketplace’s Platinum Lounge, and Clayton Hee’s $100 per person fundraiser at Soul de Cuba on January 9.
The commission has also compiled campaign spending data for elections from 1994 through 2010 for the State House and the State Senate.
I’m just starting to take a look at these figures, but one thing jumped out at me. According to these data, the costs of running for elective office and winning have not kept up with inflation. In other words, taking inflation into account, winning candidates spent less in 2010 than in 1994, which is certainly contrary to popular belief.
I averaged the amounts spent by winning candidates in the 1994 and 1996 elections, and did the same with the 2008 and 2010 elections, in order to minimize year-to-year differences caused by a few unusually expensive races or other factors.
Winning House candidates spent an average of $33,976 in the 1994-96 elections. Average spending by winning House candidates rose to $36,443 in 2008-10. But if election costs had kept up with the consumer price index, the cost of winning would have been just over $47,000, some 29% higher.
Senate campaign costs show a similar pattern. Winning Senate candidates spent an average of $84,177 in 1994-96, and that increased to $96,116 during the 2008-2010 elections. But the inflation adjusted amount would have been $116,454, or 21% higher.
So at least for these legislative races, it’s getting relatively less expensive to run a winning campaign.
In any case, the Campaign Spending Commission has provided some fascinating food for thought with its historical data.
Discover more from i L i n d
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Could part of the apparent lack of costs keeping up with inflation be due to:
1. The general minimal expense of the last few sessions opening days of the legislature? In times past the duly elected used to pay for a more elaborate spread of pupus, etc…
2. Is it possibly due to current candidates having less opposition, perhaps as a cause of redistricting? And that “grand oil party” (GOP) that I mentioned ’bout in a previous comment hasn’t fooled many here?
3. Could it be that the reporting isn’t as accurate as it should be – or perhaps the media outlets are more reasonably priced currently?
Meanwhile Hawaii Legislative Salaries are higher than ever….
At first glance, the reduced cost of an average campaign appears to be a positive indicator. But I hope some of your smart readers will offer up alternative, less optimistic explanations.
A possible factor is more reliance on (almost) free online activity and email. A less positive factor may be that fewer quality people are willing to run for elective office, so voters prefer to keep the incumbent rather than elect an unknown, often unqualified challenger.
I think the Democrats are victims of our own success. The legislative process is gridlocked and a generally ineffective means to improve society, to make government run more efficiently, to serve human needs…. And, at a personal level, to be of service.
The expense for an incumbent to block the ordinary challenger is not so much. And, as the GOP has become more dingbat, why would voters opt for their candidates?
As Barney Frank said recently, “We’re not perfect, but they’re nuts!” Accurate, but it creates conditions, at least locally, where the incumbents do not have to spend much money to be re-elected.
Both the Republicans and Democrats are not perfect and nuts. Barney Frank played a very big part in the sub-prime loan fiasco. Both parties are responsible for the mess we are in. There are crony capitalism on both sides.
It’s time to break out of the party system and focus on facts and merits.
Common Cause Hawaii :: Democracy Under the Influence
“DEMOCRACY UNDER THE INFLUENCE” Meetups
2nd Wednesdays of the month, starting December 2011
Downtown Honolulu
You’re invited! Join us for the “Democracy Under the Influence” discussion series — monthly meetups to explore the connection between money, influence, and politics in Hawaii, how it affects us all, and what we can do about it.
Our second meetup will be held on Wednesday, January 11 at 5:30pm and our theme is “Ethics, Gifts, and Fancy Dinners.” Our discussion will focus on ethics in government, gifts received by elected officials, and the fancy dinners and receptions hosted by lobbying interests. How can we strengthen our ethics laws, increase transparency, and ensure our policymaking process serves the public interest? This meetup will take place at the Laniakea YWCA, Room 307, 1040 Richards Street, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813. This event is free and open to the public.
RSVPs requested – Please sign up below, or call (808) 275-6275.
These events are cosponsored by Common Cause Hawaii, Kanu Hawaii, and League of Women Voters of Hawaii.
oops, that comment went without editing. I meant to add that this info is on the Common Cause Hawaii website. Nikki Love mentioned it today at the Sierra Club event at the legislature in the panel discussion on money and politics.
It was an excellent event. I didn’t realize that bills on campaign finance transparency and reporting have such a hard time even being getting a hearing. That seems not to serve the people’s interests.
Thank goodness for Common Cause Hawaii and Senator Les Ihara.