May 13, 1997

Are We Spending Too Much to Elect Congress?

The Federal Election Commission reports that 2,605 candidates spent a total of $765.3 million from January 1995 through December 1996 trying to win a seat in Congress in last fall's elections.

In the Senate, there were 34 seats.

• 316 candidates vied for those seats.
• They spent $287 million.
• Spending was down 10 percent from the 1993-94 cycle.

In the House, there are 440 seats.

• 2,289 candidates ran for those seats.
• They spent $477.8 million.
• Spending was up 18 percent from the previous cycle.

Political campaigns are a kind of advertising campaign where ideas and personalities and programs compete for the voters' attention and support. It is instructive, therefore, to compare political spending on congressional campaigns with corporate spending on advertising. What does it take to "sell" an idea or a candidate or a product in America today?

All candidates for Congress spent a total of $765.3 million over two years. Frankly, that's not much of a budget for thousands of candidates in hundreds of races who are seeking to persuade millions of voters. The 2,605 candidates spent just about what the Sarah Lee Corporation spent for advertising ($764.6 million over two years).

The numbers reported by the FEC are for all campaign expenses, not just advertising, but it is instructive to contrast those amounts with some of the nation's biggest two-year advertising budgets:

• Procter & Gamble spent $5.473 Billion; P & G is the advertising giant.
• General Motors spent $3.956 Billion advertising Chevys and Buicks.
• Disney spent $2.275 Billion advertising Mickey and Donald and Pocahontas.
• McDonald's spent $1.644 Billion advertising Big Macs and fries.
• Anheuser-Busch spent $1.045 Billion advertising beer and pretzels.
• Mars, Inc. spent $814 million advertising Snickers bars and other delights.

Apparently, a very large majority of Democratic Senators think the country is spending too much on congressional elections because on March 18 of this year 76 percent of them voted to amend the Constitution to allow Congress to set "reasonable limits" on campaign spending. The 96 Democratic candidates for U.S. Senate spent $127.4 million over two years. But in just one year (1995), the advertising budgets for the products Coke, Lexus, Marlboro cigarettes, and Mattel toys each had advertising budgets of between $125 million and $130 million. Maybe what the Democrats object to most is the spending by their opponents; all Republican candidates for the Senate spent $159.1 million over two years. That's a few million dollars less than is spent every year to advertise Miller Beer ($161.5 million in 1995) and Pizza Hut ($164.4 million in 1995).

The FEC numbers don't seem so daunting when they are put into the context of the billion-dollar advertising campaigns that are beamed at us daily.

Total Spending in Senate and House Elections, 1995-1996

(millions of dollars)

All Campaigns for the Senate: 287.5

By Party:

96 Democratic Candidates 127.4

114 Republican Candidates 159.1

106 Other Candidates* 1.0

316 Total Senate Candidates 287.5

By Status:

34 Winning Candidates 128.0

282 Losing Candidates 159.5

287.5

All Campaigns for the House: 477.8

By Party:

827 Democratic Candidates 221.2

853 Republican Candidates 251.4

609 Other Candidates* 5.2

2,289 Total House Candidates 477.8

By Status:

440 Winning Candidates 297.2

1,849 Losing Candidates 180.6

477.8

Total, All Campaigns 765.3

* "Other Candidates" means candidates from the Democrat/Farmer/Labor, Green, Independent, Liberal, Libertarian, Natural Law, Peace and Freedom, Reform, and Right-to-Life Parties.

[Sources: The FEC data are from 1995 & 1996 and are taken from FEC, "Congressional Fundraising and Spending Up Again in 1996," a 75-page report released April 14, 1997. The data on advertising spending are for 1994 & 1995 and are taken from Advertising Age, Sept. 30, 1996. Advertising data for 1996 are not available.]