Hello! Although we’re still over a year away from the day itself, America is starting to turn its attention towards the 2024 election. But we’re not going to be dissecting debates or mulling over mugshots… instead, we’re following the money. That’s because getting elected in America demands a cocktail of dedication, perseverance, charisma, and, increasingly, very deep pockets.
It’s a marathon and a sprint
America is pretty unique in its practically unending election season. Almost as soon as the 2022 midterm results had been announced, incumbents, hopefuls, writers, and social strategists across the nation were already turning their attention to 2024 — some candidates even announced their presidential campaigns just a week later. And, even though the first Republican debate held on Wednesday took place some 440 days before any ballots for the presidency are cast, it still captured nearly 13 million viewers.
In American politics, that extensive stretch of time is necessary to build the required fundraising machine, especially as the cost of representing your fellow citizens continues to rise nearly every election cycle. Running for political office means participating in grassroots mobilization, volunteer coordination, public opinion polling, regular debating, media production, commercial filming, social media curation, and, naturally, refining those flagship policies — all of which come with hefty price tags.
Indeed, data from OpenSecrets reveals that the most recent presidential election set a new record as the most expensive cycle in history — and by some way, with political spending for the 2020 showdown tallying an eye-watering $14.4bn, or a staggering $16bn if adjusted for inflation.
Last year's midterm elections continued the trend of skyrocketing spending: the winning House candidates, for instance, shelled out $2.8m each on average. That's roughly 7x the average spend of $410k in 1990, or 3x if adjusted for inflation.
Meanwhile, in the Senate, where election campaigns can stretch over a marathon 6-year period, the price of victory was an astonishing $26.5m per candidate — and history suggests that election spending in 2024 is likely to reach even loftier heights.
A series of Supreme Court rulings have played a pivotal role in fueling this spending spree. Most notably granting the ultra-wealthy the ability to funnel unlimited funds into campaigns via "Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs)". These Super PACs can advocate for anyone or policy they like, or dislike, although they are prohibited from donating directly to candidates. They also remain anonymous — a funding arrangement often referred to as "dark money".
Show me the money
Delving into the allocation of these gargantuan sums, it should come as a shock to no-one who turned on their TV, logged into social media, or just wasn’t living under a rock during the presidential cycle that nearly $9bn of campaign money went toward media expenses. That was far and away the biggest expense, as candidates paid up to get their names, faces, and key policies on radios, televisions, and social media feeds across the US.
The ballot budget breakdown
Following media expenses, the next most substantial chunk of election budgets was swallowed up by fundraising efforts — think pamphlets, telemarketing calls, extravagant events, and, of course, those high-priced consultants — totaling some $1.6bn in the 2020 cycle. While spending over a billion dollars on fundraising may seem a little paradoxical at first, it helps to think of electoral campaigns as businesses: fundraising expenditure is effectively a marketing cost that, in theory, enables the business to circulate more funds elsewhere in the long term.
It often pays off to pump time and money into fundraising at the start of electoral proceedings too: research has highlighted that early fundraising can be a remarkably accurate predictor of the ultimate victor in primary races, though it has been less meaningful in general elections.
The winners' circle
The same question often emerges in the lead-up to an election: does spending more money actually equal more votes?
An exhaustive analysis is probably best left to political pundits or prospective PhD students, but even a simple examination of the 2020 House elections from OpenSecrets reveals that, among the 434 House seats contested, a mere 52 saw victory for the candidate with leaner campaign expenses. Indeed, in the last 4 cycles, House candidates who spent more money went to win their races 91% of the time.
Hey big spenders
Party leaders and top deputies generally spent the heftiest sums, often transferring large portions to party coffers — and in some cases lead to some lopsided contests.
While Republican chief whip and current Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy beat Democrat Kim Mangone to California’s 23rd District, he did so at the expense of $23.2m — some $21.6m more than his opponent. Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi, the twice-serving House speaker who preceded McCarthy, forked out nearly $19m more in the congressional race than runner-up Shahid Buttar — a self-described “constitutional lawyer, artist, writer, DJ & MC” — who spent just $1.6m on his campaign.
At least in 2020, more profligate politicians had the upper hand — even high profile candidates splashed masses of cash to get elected. Despite Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or AOC) being the member of congress (or MOC) with the most Twitter followers, the youngest woman to serve in congress still spent some $5.2m more than her rival during her $16m campaign. And, notwithstanding a controversial court case just a year later, provocative representative Matt Gaetz claimed victory with a $4.4m campaign, spending some $2.5m more than his contender — a similar margin to that which saw Greg Pence win his race by, brother to another well-known Indiana legislator, who spent $2.7m in total.
Even so, being a familiar face paid dividends at the polls. Don Young, the Alaskan politician who was the longest-serving Republican in congressional history before he passed away in 2022, won the 2020 election while spending $3.3m less than his opponent. When you’ve been in congress for 49 years, you can maybe cut back on a few TV ads. It’s 85 year-old Maxine Waters, though, who most efficiently reaped ballots on a (relative) budget: serving California since 1991, Waters dished out ~$7.9m less than her opponent in 2020 to keep her well-worn seat.
Clearly, having deep pockets can only take you so far — Mike Bloomberg poured more than $1 billion into his primary campaign — but it certainly won't hurt your chances.
Like this deep dive? Enjoyed how we wrote about politics without really writing about politics? Send it to your friends and family and get them to subscribe! It helps our small team enormously. Thank you, and enjoy your Sunday!
