Money is the clear winner in 2006 elections

While Bob Corker narrowly defeated Harold Ford Jr. in the Tennessee Senate race, across the nation, money remains the clear winner in American politics. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, in 94 percent of the House elections and 69 percent of the Senate elections, the candidate who spent the most money won.

Similarly, incumbents—who generally raise two to three times more money—retain the advantage over their challengers: 94 percent of House incumbents and 82 percent of Senators won their re-election campaigns.

Although Tennessee’s Senate race garnered two fresh faces, the candidate who raised the most money won the election. Compared to the $9,886,998 Harold Ford Jr. raised, Bob Corker managed to amass a $15,173,962 war chest to defeat his opponent.

These patterns cut across party lines. Regardless of affiliation, whoever spends the most money usually wins. Since winning elections hinges on the ability to raise money, candidates inevitably respond more to wealthy donors than voters.

To solve this problem, Tennessee should institute Clean Elections—a voluntary system already implemented in several states that provides full public financing for all eligible candidates. Arizona’s Janet Napolitano demonstrates the viability and popularity of the Clean Elections system. Napolitano has won Arizona’s gubernatorial election twice under the Clean Elections system. Instead of outspending her opponents, Napolitano won by getting to know voters, not donors. In addition, Arizona voted on 17 ballot initiatives, demonstrating the increased civic involvement resulting from people’s restored faith in the electoral process. With record campaign spending across the country, now is the time to adopt what Arizona, Maine and several other states have enjoyed for years—a properly working democracy.

Tom Byrne is a Sophomore in Peabody College.