Übersicht
Campaign fundraising in 2013 was, by most measures, fairly modest. More than 850 candidates ran for state-level office in 25 states, raising $204.7 million in contributions—the third-lowest odd-year election total in the last decade. Six states had a combined 31 measures on their ballots; contributions to ballot measure committees were the lowest in a decade, totaling $49.9 million nationwide. Political party committees raised $159 million, the third-highest odd-year election since 2003, but well short of the $181.1 million raised in 2011.
The Institute's analysis of the $413.6 million1 collectively raised by candidates and committees during the 2013 elections reveals:
- Gubernatorial candidates attracted 47 percent of the money raised by all candidates on the ballot that year. Contributions to candidates running for governor and lieutenant governor of Virginia outpaced fundraising in the previous three gubernatorial elections; in New Jersey, meanwhile, there was a notable decrease in contributions to gubernatorial candidates compared to the previous two elections.
- Candidates for the 2011 state legislature in New Jersey cumulatively raised 41 percent more money than did 2013 legislative candidates.
- State delegate candidates in Virginia cumulatively raised $34.6 million, more than any election in Virginia since 1999 other than the 2009 election when house candidates collected $35.8 million.
- Incumbents who won reelection received 57 percent of all contributions to state legislative candidates.
- Democratic candidates outraised their Republican counterparts $107.4 million to $94.4 million, but Republican Party committees enjoyed a $17.3 million edge over Democratic Party committees.
- While total contributions to ballot measure committees nationwide were the lowest in a decade, Amendment 66 in Colorado and Initiative 522 in Washington featured some of the most well-financed ballot measure committees in those states in the last decade.
Gubernatorial Contests, 2013
New Jersey and Virginia held gubernatorial elections in 2013. Candidates in these elections raised $91.9 million, which is 21 percent less than the $116 million raised in 2009 and 33 percent less than the $137 million raised in 2005. The drop in fundraising was unsurprising given the uncompetitive race2 in New Jersey between incumbent Republican Gov. Chris Christie and Democrat Barbara Buono. Christie won with more than 60 percent of the vote.3 The race in 2009 was far more competitive4 and consequently attracted 50 percent more in contributions.
In Virginia, the $65.5 million raised in gubernatorial elections was the most raised in any gubernatorial election in Virginia since 2001. The race for the open governor’s seat between Democrat Terry McAuliffe and Republican Ken Cuccinelli accounted for $59.5 million, while $6 million was collectively raised by candidates for lieutenant governor. This spike in contributions is largely attributed to the millions given by national organizations wanting to influence the race, most notably the Republican Governors Association and the Democratic Governors Association, which gave $8.1 million and $6.6 million respectively.
Figure 1: Total Raised in New Jersey and Virginia Gubernatorial Races, 2013 Compared to 2009
![NJ VA GovRaces8](assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage600528-NJ-VA-GovRaces8.png)
Democratic gubernatorial candidates garnered $48.7 million, slightly more than the $42.9 million raised by Republican candidates. Incumbent Republican Gov. Christie in New Jersey outraised his Democratic challenger by $14.1 million; meanwhile, Democratic candidates in Virginia enjoyed a $19.9 million advantage over Republicans in those open races.5 There was a decline in contributions to candidates of both major parties compared to the 2009 elections, but it was far more pronounced for Democrats. Third-party candidates only raised $278,421, the second-lowest odd-year election total for third-party candidates in the last decade.
Campaigns for State Legislatures, 2013
There were a total of 307 legislative seats on the 2013 ballots nationwide. Just two states—New Jersey and Virginia—held regularly-scheduled legislative elections in 2013; recall and special legislative elections held in 23 states filled 28 senate and 60 house/assembly seats.
New Jersey legislative candidates raised considerably less compared to the previous election. In 2013, candidates raised $37.2 million, which is $25.6 million less than candidates raised in 2011. On average in 2013, assembly candidates in New Jersey raised $95,527 and senate candidates raised $192,133. In 2011, assembly candidates averaged $116,109 in contributions and senate candidates averaged $389,711.
Candidates running for the Virginia House of Delegates raised $34.6 million, which is $1.2 million less than the amount house candidates raised in the comparable 2009 election.6 The average raised by 2013 house candidates was $198,688, compared to an average of $175,489 in 2009. There was no regularly scheduled election for a state senate seat in Virginia in 2013.
Incumbency was a major factor in campaign contributions to legislative candidates, particularly among candidates who won. Nearly $53 million was given to incumbents seeking reelection, 95 percent of which went to those who emerged victorious. In stark contrast, $13.6 million went to the candidates who challenged incumbents, only 14 percent of which went to the winner of the race. The distribution of money given to candidates running in open races was more evenly divided: $17.2 million to the winner and $13.1 million to the losing candidate.
Figure 2: Contribution Totals for Legislative Candidates, by Incumbency Status and by Status of Candidate, 2013
![LegCandbyStatus4](assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage600508-LegCandbyStatus4.png)
Legislative candidates in 2013 recall and special elections raised $25.1 million nationwide. The money raised in elections in three states accounted for 62 percent of that total:
- In California, $7.4 million was raised between candidates for five senate seats, including $4.8 million in the Senate District 4 race, the most expensive election for a state legislative seat nationwide in 2013; additionally, $3.2 million was raised between candidates for four assembly seats.
- In Texas, $2.6 million was raised by candidates in a special election for Senate District 6 and $821,892 was raised by candidates in the race for Texas House District 50.
- In Washington, special elections were held for three senate seats, totaling $1.7 million in contributions, most of which were given to candidates in the race for Senate District 26.
Judicial Elections, 2013
Three states collectively held elections for 10 judicial seats in 2013, the fewest on the ballot nationwide in the last decade. Sitting judges prevailed in retention elections7 in Pennsylvania, two on the high court and two on the appellate court. In Wisconsin, candidates competed for one state supreme court seat, and three candidates ran unopposed for appellate seats. Two appellate seats were on the ballot in Washington.
Of the $1.7 million raised by judicial candidates, 96 percent went to candidates running for seats on a state supreme court. The most expensive race was the only supreme court election in Wisconsin, totaling $997,710 raised by three candidates. In Pennsylvania, two justices collectively raised $597,001 for their retention elections. The cumulative total for all high court races in 2013 was the second-lowest fundraising total for such candidates in odd-year elections in the last decade.
Although all three states featured elections for appellate court seats, only the three candidates running in Washington reported contributions, which totaled $74,591. This is the least amount raised by such candidates in odd-year elections since 2009,8 largely because there was a dearth of candidates compared to past elections.
Who Gave to State Candidates?
While Republican candidates outraised their Democratic counterparts in contributions from most economic sectors during the 2011-2012 election cycle, Democrats surpassed GOP fundraising in 2013 from the following economic sectors: communications and electronics; defense; finance, insurance and real estate; ideology and single issue; health; and political parties. Democratic candidates also maintained an edge over Republican candidates in contributions from lawyers and lobbyists; organized labor; and donors from the government agencies, public education, and others sector. Republican candidates, meanwhile, raised more money from the remaining economic sectors.9
Ideological groups led the way in contributions to state candidates, largely because of major investments from several national groups in Virginia’s governor’s race. The $28.8 million given by ideology donors in 2013 is more than the combined total from such donors in the four preceding odd-year elections. More than 96 percent of that money went to candidates in Virginia, primarily gubernatorial and other statewide candidates.
Candidates and political parties continued to be a major source of funding for candidates in 2013. Political parties and legislative caucuses were the second-largest source of funds for Republicans and the third-largest source of funds for Democrats. There was a clear Republican edge in contributions from candidates (both self-financing of campaigns and contributions from other candidates): GOP candidates received $7.4 million while Democratic candidates received only $4.2 million.
Figure 3: Contributions to Major Party Candidates by Economic Sector, All States, 2013
Contributions to Political Party Committees, 2013
Party committees in all 50 states collectively raised $159 million, about $9.6 million more than they raised in 2009, but well below the totals raised in 2007 and 2011. Even in the states with general elections in 2013, parties were not setting fundraising records: Virginia parties did not raise as much in 2013 as they did in 2011 and the $13.1 million that went to party committees in New Jersey was one of the lowest odd-year fundraising totals for New Jersey state parties in the last decade.
Republican Party committees outraised Democratic committees $88.1 to $70.8 million in 2013. The partisan gap in fundraising is largely attributed to the GOP outraising their counterparts by $16.3 million in Florida and $8.9 million in Ohio. Democratic committees, meanwhile, outraised Republican committees by $7.8 million in California and $5.6 million in Virginia. That California and Florida lead the pack in contributions to party committees is not unusual, but the $44.5 million collectively raised by parties in those states is the most raised in any odd-year election in the last decade.
* The Institute is finalizing data collection for Virginia party committees.
Who Gave to State Political Parties?
Even in an odd-year election, there continues to be a mutually beneficial relationship between party committees and candidates. As in the 2011-2012 election cycle, other party committees—national, state and local—and candidates were among the most generous contributors to political parties in 2013. Democratic Party committees raised $8.7 million from other party committees, which is $2.7 million more than Republican party committees raised. Conversely, Republican Party committees raised $17 million from candidates compared to $13 million to Democratic committees.
Republican Party committees held an advantage in contributions from most economic sectors. Organized labor was the leading source of money for Democratic committees, contributing $13.7 million, compared to only $1.2 million given to Republican committees. The Democrats also had a modest edge over Republicans in contributions from lawyers and lobbyists and donors from the government agencies, public education, and others sector. Most other economic sectors gave considerably more to state Republican Party committees.
Figure 4: Contributions to Political Parties, by Economic Sector, All States, 2013
![2013 Pol Parties by Econ Sector7](assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage600537-2013-Pol-Parties-by-Econ-Sector7.png)
Ballot Measures, 2013
In 2013, six states held elections on 31 ballot measures that attracted $49.9 million in contributions. Of that sum, 97 percent was raised around three ballot measures in Washington, Colorado, and Texas.
The most prolific fundraising was around Initiative 522 in Washington, a measure to require the labeling of genetically engineered agricultural commodities, processed foods, and seeds, which narrowly failed to pass. The initiative brought in $34.2 million, of which only $1.2 million was raised in support of the measure. Two industries in the agricultural sector gave the lion’s share of opponents’ money: the food processing and sales industry gave $17.6 million, including $11 million from the Grocery Manufacturers Association; and the agricultural services industry gave $6.6 million, most of which came from Monsanto Company. Supporters, meanwhile, relied primarily on ideological/single issue groups for contributions ($413,357), but they also attracted abundant unitemized donations—contributions of $25 or less that are exempt from donor disclosure requirements—and there was a strong showing of support from the agricultural sector as well.
Amendment 66, an unsuccessful Colorado measure to increase the income tax rate for certain tax brackets and allocate 43 percent of sales, excise, and income tax revenue to the State Education Fund, also featured a lopsided financial advantage for one side of the campaign. Donors gave $11.2 million to committees supporting Amendment 66 and only $166,007 to committees opposing the measure. Public sector unions led the way with $4.2 million, but supporters were backed by a variety of other interests, including $1.5 million from nonprofit institutions, $1 million from the computer equipment and services sector, and another $1 million from liberal policy organizations. The vast majority ($144,119) of the opposition’s money came from the Independence Institute, a conservative policy organization.
Voters in Texas overwhelmingly passed Proposition 6, a constitutional amendment to create two state funds to finance priority projects in the state water plan, following a campaign that attracted $2.9 million in contributions made in support of the measure. No individual industry dominated financing, but oil and gas interests led the way with $532,500, followed by $375,000 from the construction industry, $259,000 from ideological and single issue groups, and $255,000 from donors classified as general business. While there was some organized opposition to Proposition 6,10 the Institute did not identify a ballot measure committee to report contributions made in opposition to the measure.
Most of the remaining ballot measure money was raised around a handful of other initiatives, including $573,956 in support of a series of bond measures in Maine, and $623,433 to committees against a measure to amend the initiative process in Washington. There were also 18 measures that did not involve a single campaign contribution.
Fazit
2013 will probably not be remembered for campaign finance activity, as the data reveals somewhat anemic fundraising that year. That said, a national overview of an odd-year election is less likely to reveal the upward trend in campaign contributions the Institute has documented in traditional election cycles.11 Ideological contributions to candidates in the Virginia gubernatorial election, Initiative 522 in Washington, and Amendment 66 in Colorado all suggest that abundant campaign contributions are certainly possible in an odd-year election. Observers should keep this in mind as another odd-year election campaign season sets in.
- 1. This overview reflects the data on the website as of March 23, 3015 and only covers money raised by state-level political parties, candidates on the ballot in 2013, and ballot measure committees raising money around ballot measures that qualified for the ballot in 2013. Money raised by other filers is not included.
- 2. Real Clear Politics, “New Jersey Governor - Christie vs. Buono,” available from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2013/governor/nj/new_jersey_governor_christie_vs_buono-3411.html#polls, accessed January 15, 2015.
- 3. Brown, Lara, “Chris Christie the Contender” U.S. News & World Report, November 6, 2013, available from http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/lara-brown/2013/11/06/chris-christies-reelection-in-new-jersey-proves-hes-a-contender-in-2016, accessed February 17, 2015.
- 4. Real Clear Politics, “New Jersey Governor - Corzine vs. Christie,” available from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2009/governor/nj/new_jersey_governor_corzine_vs_christie-1051.html#polls, accessed January 15, 2015.
- 5. The Democratic fundraising advantage in Virginia is partly the result of an expensive primary campaign for Lieutenant Governor. Ralph S. Northam, who ultimately won the general election, raised $2.7 million while Aneesha Chopra, his opponent in the Democratic primary, raised $2 million. The only Republican in the race took in $1.3 million. If one limits the analysis to candidates for governor, the Democratic candidate outraised his opponent by $16.6 million.
- 6. Similar to 2013, only house candidates were running in a 2009 regularly scheduled election in Virginia. The 2011 election is not a comparable election because, in addition to elections for house seats, there was an election for every senate seat.
- 7. Retention elections are those in which voters choose whether or not the incumbent will remain in office.
- 8. The Institute began collecting data on appellate judicial elections in 2008.
- 9. This does not include unitemized donations, more of which went to Democratic candidates in 2013.
- 10. Barer, David, “Water amendment opponents coalesce in Batrop, proponents skip event,” The Dallas Morning News, September 22, 2013, available from http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2013/09/water- amendment-opponents-coalesce-in-bastrop-proponents-skip-event.html/, accessed January 20, 2015.
- 11. The Institute documented record setting campaign contribution totals in both the 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 elections cycles. See Institute reports, “Overview of Campaign Finances, 2011-2012” and “An Overview of Campaign Finances, 2009-2010.”
Clearly, you're interested in following the money.
It costs more than $2 million a year to provide these verifiable facts about money in politics.
Do you know we simply give it to you, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
How often does that happen elsewhere in your life?
Please donate. You'll help us keep democracy transparent!