New Jersey, New York City Elections a Win for Public Funding, a Loss for Big Money

Governor-Elect Christie, Mayoral Candidate Thompson Post Unexpectedly Strong Results with Public Funding In-spite of Major Funding Disadvantage

In two closely-watched elections in New Jersey and New York City November 3rd, the high-spending incumbent governor and mayor, respectively, fell far short of expectations despite committing tens of millions of dollars from their personal fortunes to the race. Publicly-funded opponents in both races, meanwhile, posted strong results, even as they were outspent by as much as 14-to-1.

New Jersey incumbent Governor Jon Corzine, spending $25.9 million of his own funds for a career total of more than $130 million in self-funding, lost to Republican challenger Chris Christie, in spite of an enormous spending advantage. More than half of Mr. Christie's $10.9 million spending came in the form of public funding under New Jersey's voluntary public funding program.

"Take away the $5.5 million in public funding Christie received, and there is simply no contest. Without that funding, the challenger would not have been able to communicate his message to the voters," said Dan Weeks, president of Americans for Campaign Reform and author of the empirical study "Does Money Buy Elections", which traces the diminishing returns to federal campaign spending from 1992-2006.

In New York City, incumbent Mayor Michael Bloomberg committed a record-breaking $90-$100 million of his own fortune to seek a third-term, earning an unexpectedly low 51 percent of the vote despite a 14-to-1 fundraising advantage over his publicly-funded opponent. "At more than $25 per New York City voter, Mayor Bloomberg's unprecedented spending was evidently not appreciated by many of his constituents," Weeks said. "It just goes to show that big money doesn't always win the day, so long as the other guy has a chance to get known."

Democratic mayoral candidate William Thompson, Jr earned a better-than-expected 46% of the vote with just $6 million, an amount many experts consider is insufficient to run a winning campaign in media-intensive New York City. Nevertheless, Weeks said, the estimated $5 million in public matching funds earned by Mr. Thompson under New York City's campaign finance program ensured that voters had a modicum of choice in the race for mayor. According to exit polls, nearly half of Thompson voters cited the mayor's high spending as an important factor in their decision not to vote for Mayor Bloomberg.

"These results definitely show what political science has known all along: that money does not buy elections and big spending by millionaire candidates does not sit well with voters," said John Rauh, founder of Americans for Campaign Reform and a former US Senate nominee from New Hampshire. "Experience in several states with public funding shows that voters reject the big-money system, in which candidates increasingly rely on millions of dollars from special interest groups, in favor of public funding," Rauh said. Surveys of candidate participation in public funding programs across Maine, Arizona, and Connecticut in 2008 showed more than three-quarters of incumbents and challengers in both parties voluntarily opting for public funding.

Legislation now before Congress would extend the state and city public funding model to all House and Senate races by matching small constituent donations with public funds for qualifying candidates who forego large donations. The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 752, HR 1826), introduced by Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Congressmen John Larson (D-CT) and Walter Jones (R-NC), is currently in committee hearings with backing from 115 cosponsors in Congress

See Report "Does Money Buy Elections?"

Americans for Campaign Reform (ACR) is a national bipartisan initiative chaired by former Senators Bill Bradley (D-NJ), Bob Kerrey, (D-NE), Warren Rudman (R-NH), and Al Simpson (R-NE), which works to pass voluntary public funding of all federal elections.