Übersicht
Elections provide choices. Choices among candidates, among parties, among ideas. Yet not all elections offer these choices. In the 2013 and 2014 elections, more than one third of legislative seats were uncontested, with the outcome a foregone conclusion. Even among the contested seats, the contest was rarely equal.
The National Institute on Money in State Politics analyzed the money raised by candidates in legislative races and learned that fewer than one in five (18 percent) legislative races were monetarily competitive in 2013 and 2014.1
The proportions of both contested races and monetarily competitive races were the lowest observed since 2005. Throughout the past decade, contested race rates have ranged between 66 and 73 percent; the drop to 64 percent this cycle is notable. Similarly, the percentage of seats in monetarily competitive races in the past decade has ranged from 20 to 24 percent, so this latest drop to 18 percent is likewise noteworthy. The drop is particularly noticeable in comparison to the last election cycle that had the same seats up for election—2009 and 2010—when 73 percent of races were contested, and 25 percent were monetarily competitive.
What influenced this drop?
The Institute identified three major factors that relate to the contested levels and monetary competitiveness of legislative races:
- Public financing for legislative candidates is associated with higher levels of contested races and competitiveness
- Term limits are associated with more contested races
- Incumbency is a major factor: states with higher levels of incumbents running for reelection had fewer contested races, and races that involved incumbents were less competitive.
- States with lower campaign costs generally featured more monetarily competitive races.
*The total number of states with legislative elections ranges from 47 to 49, depending on the election year, because of varying term lengths. New Jersey is consistently excluded—see discussion in the Methodology section.
Methodology
The Institute analyzed campaign contributions raised by candidates who ran for legislative seats in 2013 and 2014. Three states were excluded: New Jersey’s multi-candidate committees make it impossible to compare the fundraising of individual candidates, and neither Louisiana nor Mississippi held regularly scheduled legislative elections in 2013 and 2014.
This report examines and compares the money raised by legislative candidates who ran in regularly scheduled general elections in 47 states. Not included are special elections or money raised by candidates who lost in primaries or conventions, or who withdrew, died, or were disqualified before the general election.
In this report, a seat is a legislative position. A race is a contest among candidates running against each other for a seat. A case where candidates run against each other and the top two vote-getters win is considered one race for two seats. A race in which at least one candidate lost is considered contested. In some states, multiple seats are won in one race. In that case, if the number of candidates equals the number of winners, the multi-seat race is considered uncontested.
To determine whether a race is monetarily competitive, the Institute compared the top fundraiser’s total against the next-largest fundraiser’s total. A single-seat race was considered monetarily competitive if the top fundraiser raised no more than twice the amount of the next-highest fundraiser. To determine the monetary competitiveness of multi-seat elections, the Institute identified the number of top fundraisers equal to the number of seats up for election in a given race. If the next-highest fundraiser raised at least half the average of those candidates, it is deemed a competitive race. For example, a race in which three seats are up for election would be competitive if the fourth-leading fundraiser raised at least half as much as the average of the top three.
An incumbent is defined as a sitting officeholder seeking reelection to the same seat.
An open seat means the sitting incumbent is not running for reelection to that office.
The Institute calculated the average cost of each state’s legislative elections by adding the amounts raised by the top fundraisers for each seat, and divided that total by the number of seats up for election in that state. In multi-seat elections, the Institute averaged the totals of all candidates who qualified as top fundraisers.
For more information on legislative races, see the Institute’s report, 2013 and 2014: Money and Incumbency in State Legislative Races.
Contested Legislative Seats
Elections in more than one third of the legislative seats in 2013 and 2014 were little more than a formality. Only 64 percent of legislative seats were contested in the general election, a slight step down from the 66 percent contested in 2012 but nonetheless the lowest proportion since 2003 and 2004.
More than 90 percent of legislative races were contested in five states: California, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, and West Virginia. Michigan had the highest proportion of contested races, with multiple candidates on the ballot for every single legislative race, broadly similar to the 2009 and 2010 figure of 99 percent.
On the opposite side of the spectrum, only one in five legislative races in Georgia featured multiple choices. Thirteen states, including six contiguous southern states, saw fewer than half of their races contested: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Wyoming.
Some states saw dramatic shifts in contestation levels when viewed against the last comparable elections in 2009 and 2010. Nebraska had the largest increase, from 63 percent contested in 2009 and 2010 to 83 percent contested this cycle. Rhode Island had the most sizable drop, falling from 79 percent in 2009 and 2010 to 42 percent in 2013 and 2014.
Many variables complicate making definitive statements of causation, yet some notable trends emerge from examining the characteristics of the most and least contested states.
- States that impose legislative term limits had 72 percent of seats contested, compared to 61 percent of seats contested in states without term limits.2
- 87 percent of seats up for election in states with public financing for legislative elections were contested, while only 61 percent of seats in states without those programs were contested.3
- 78 percent of races that had no incumbents were contested, compared to 61 percent contested in races that had incumbents seeking reelection.
Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats
Fewer than one in five legislative races had anything approaching financial parity between the candidates. The 18 percent of monetarily competitive seats is the lowest documented since the Institute began calculating these figures in 2003 and 2004.
The Institute identified three variables that fueled this drop:
- public financing
- incumbency
- cost of campaigns
Monetary Competitiveness and Public Financing
Public financing influenced the competitiveness of legislative races. The five states that offered public financing options for legislative candidates continued to average higher rates of monetary competitiveness. Four of the states ranked in the top ten most-competitive states, and three states were among the top five.4 Hawaii, which had very low participation in its partial public financing program, did not rank among the most competitive states in either 2010 or 2014.
Two of the five public financing states—Arizona and Maine—saw double-digit drops in competitiveness levels since 2010. One possible explanation for this precipitous decline is a general drop in participation in public financing programs. If this is true, Hawaii becomes the exception that proves the rule because in both cycles it had both low participation and low competitiveness.
* Arizona Clean Elections Commission, “2010 Annual Report,” February 17, 2011, available from http://www.azcleanelections.gov/CmsItem/File/32, accessed October 7, 2015. Overall number includes statewide candidates and primary losers.
**Arizona Clean Elections Commission, “2014 Citizens Clean Elections Commission Report” March 2, 2015, available from http://www.azcleanelections.gov/CmsItem/File/28, accessed October 7, 2015. Overall number includes statewide candidates and primary losers.
*** Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission, “2010 General Assembly Election,” available from http://www.ct.gov/seec/cwp/view.asp?a=3556&q=451138, accessed October 7, 2015.
**** Connecticut State Elections Enforcement Commission, “Candidate Registration List for Election Year 2014,” available from http://seec.ct.gov/ecrisreporting/CandidateListDownLoad.aspx?key=2014CANHTML accessed October 7, 2015.
§ Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, “Public Funds Disbursed in 2010,” available from http://ags.hawaii.gov/campaign/reports/public-funds-disbursed/public-funds-disbursed-in-2010/, accessed October 8, 2015
§§ Hawaii Campaign Spending Commission, “Public Funds Disbursed in 2014,” available from http://ags.hawaii.gov/campaign/public-funds-disbursed-in-2014/, accessed October 8, 2015.
† Moretto, Mario, “Barely half of Maine’s legislative candidates tap public campaign fund, a record low since Clean Election Act passed,” Bangor Daily News, October 1, 2014, available from http://bangordailynews.com/2014/10/01/the-point/barely-half-of-maines-legislative-candidates-will-tap-public-campaign-fund-a-record-low-since-clean-election-act-passed/, accessed October 2, 2015.
‡Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, “2010 Public Subsidy Payments,” January 12, 2011, available from http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/publicsubsidy/2010_Public_Subsidy_Payment.pdf, accessed October 7, 2015. Overall number includes statewide candidates and primary losers.
‡‡ Minnesota Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, “2014 Public Subsidy Payments,” December 22, 2014, available from http://www.cfboard.state.mn.us/publicsubsidy/2014_Public_Subsidy_Payments.pdf, accessed October 7, 2015. Overall number includes statewide candidates and primary losers.
The table above shows there isn’t always a clear link between participation rates in public funding systems and a state’s competitiveness in elections. In Arizona and Maine, the intuitive argument that lower participation in public financing is related to less competitive elections has some support, in that both states saw steep drops in both proportions. This trend can also be seen to some degree in Hawaii, where participation and competitive rates both rose. However, Connecticut and Minnesota show no such relationship. Connecticut experienced a drop in public financing participation but minimal change in the percentage of competitive seats, while in Minnesota there were no significant changes in participation levels but a notable decline in competitiveness. There is, of course, a powerful new variable affecting states with public financing systems: the continued growth of independent spending, which has uncertain consequences.
Monetary Competitiveness and Incumbency
Incumbency influenced the monetary competitiveness of legislative races. In 2013 and 2014, 16 percent of races featuring incumbents were competitive, compared to 28 percent of open races. On a state-by-state level, there is a slight relationship between the levels of incumbency and levels of competitiveness, as seen in the graph below. The extreme outlier at the bottom is Nebraska, where incumbents sought reelection in only 29 percent of the legislative races. This low level of incumbency may be a reason why Nebraska’s percentage of seats in competitive races rose 25 points from the previous cycle.
Figure 1: Percent of Seats in Competitive Races versus Percent of Seats in Races with Incumbents, 2013 and 2014
Costly Campaigns and Monetary Competitiveness
The cost of campaigns influenced the competitiveness of legislative races. Taking the average raised by the top legislative fundraisers in each race provides a useful way to measure the total cost of winning an office in that state; results show some evidence of influence between the average fundraising total of monetary leaders in each race and levels of monetary competitiveness. Seven of the ten states that had the most monetarily competitive seats saw the lowest average total raised by top legislative fundraisers. Figure 2 illustrates this relationship.
The huge variations in these averages reflect the diversity of the states. For instance, the top fundraisers in California’s legislative races averaged $1,003,569 in contributions, nearly $1 million more than Vermont’s average of $5,317. As seen in Figure 2, many of the more expensive states, such as Texas or Illinois, are less competitive than their more affordable peers. However, there are limits to this trend, particularly in states with low levels of contested races, such as Georgia and South Carolina. Those states had low election costs but nevertheless were uncompetitive.
Figure 2: Percent of Seats in Competitive Races versus Average Raised by Top Legislative Fundraisers, 2013 and 2014
An Examination of the Most Monetarily Competitive States
The ten most-competitive states are spread both across the map and the ideological spectrum. They also are diverse in the routes they took to competitiveness. Maine, the most competitive state, combines low incumbency rates, low cost of campaigns, and public financing, and thus is the unsurprising leader. However, the other highly competitive states have more mixed profiles, which highlights the fact that each of the three factors—public financing, incumbency, and the cost of campaigns—can be important.
Connecticut has below-average campaign costs and public financing to balance its high incumbency rate, while Nebraska has high campaign costs and no public financing, but the lowest incumbency rate in the nation. West Virginia has the highest incumbency rate, but low campaign costs. Arizona is in the middle of the pack in terms of incumbency and cost, but has a public financing system. Montana has some of the lowest costs and lowest incumbency rates but no public financing for legislative candidates. Minnesota has inexpensive elections and a partial public financing system, but high incumbency. Alaska, North Dakota, and Vermont all have low costs.
An Examination of the Least Competitive States
The states with the least monetarily competitive seats are mostly in the South and all without public funding. With the exceptions of Tennessee and Oklahoma, all of them ranked in the top ten for either the percentage of seats with incumbents or the average raised by the top legislative fundraisers. It’s also worth noting that fewer than half of the races were contested in seven of these ten states.
Fazit
The proportion of contested and monetarily competitive legislative races hit all-time lows during the 2013 and 2014 elections. Only 64 percent of legislative seats were contested, and only 18 percent of them were competitive. Inexpensive campaigns and public financing systems appeared to lead to higher levels of competition, while high numbers of incumbents running for reelection worked against competitiveness. With fewer contested or monetarily competitive races, voters ultimately were left with fewer real choices on election day.
Appendix A: Contested and Monetarily Competitive Legislative Seats 2013 and 2014*
Number of Seats Up for Election | Number of Contested Seats | Percent of Seats in Contested Races | Number of Monetarily Competitive Seats | Percent of Seats in Monetarily Competitive Races | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 140 | 60 | 43% | 12 | 9% |
Alaska | 54 | 42 | 78% | 16 | 30% |
Arizona | 90 | 76 | 84% | 33 | 37% |
Arkansas | 118 | 42 | 36% | 21 | 18% |
California | 100 | 96 | 96% | 15 | 15% |
Colorado | 82 | 67 | 82% | 9 | 11% |
Connecticut | 187 | 152 | 81% | 95 | 51% |
Delaware | 51 | 33 | 65% | 10 | 20% |
Florida | 139 | 68 | 49% | 8 | 6% |
Georgien | 236 | 48 | 20% | 4 | 2% |
Hawaii | 64 | 51 | 80% | 13 | 20% |
Idaho | 105 | 63 | 60% | 12 | 11% |
Illinois | 137 | 55 | 40% | 16 | 12% |
Indiana | 125 | 71 | 57% | 17 | 14% |
Iowa | 125 | 71 | 57% | 21 | 17% |
Kansas | 125 | 76 | 61% | 21 | 17% |
Kentucky | 119 | 63 | 53% | 31 | 26% |
Maine | 186 | 172 | 92% | 105 | 56% |
Maryland | 188 | 150 | 80% | 23 | 12% |
Massachusetts | 199 | 88 | 44% | 39 | 20% |
Michigan | 148 | 148 | 100% | 24 | 16% |
Minnesota | 134 | 125 | 93% | 56 | 42% |
Missouri | 180 | 95 | 53% | 21 | 12% |
Montana | 125 | 108 | 86% | 42 | 34% |
Nebraska | 24 | 20 | 83% | 11 | 46% |
Nevada | 53 | 43 | 81% | 9 | 17% |
New Hampshire | 424 | 376 | 89% | 73 | 17% |
New Mexico | 70 | 34 | 49% | 15 | 21% |
New York | 213 | 140 | 66% | 18 | 8% |
North Carolina | 170 | 90 | 53% | 21 | 12% |
North Dakota | 72 | 52 | 72% | 21 | 29% |
Ohio | 116 | 97 | 84% | 5 | 4% |
Oklahoma | 125 | 47 | 38% | 11 | 9% |
Oregon | 75 | 57 | 76% | 11 | 15% |
Pennsylvania | 228 | 111 | 49% | 22 | 10% |
Rhode Island | 113 | 48 | 42% | 6 | 5% |
South Carolina | 124 | 35 | 28% | 6 | 5% |
South Dakota | 105 | 64 | 61% | 23 | 22% |
Tennessee | 116 | 51 | 44% | 4 | 3% |
Texas | 165 | 96 | 58% | 7 | 4% |
Utah | 89 | 75 | 84% | 12 | 13% |
Vermont | 180 | 109 | 61% | 48 | 27% |
Virginia | 100 | 54 | 54% | 20 | 20% |
Washington | 122 | 104 | 85% | 21 | 17% |
West Virginia | 117 | 106 | 91% | 53 | 45% |
Wisconsin | 116 | 67 | 58% | 16 | 14% |
Wyoming | 75 | 27 | 36% | 13 | 17% |
Nationwide Total | 6149 | 3923 | 64% | 1110 | 18% |
*As discussed in the Methodology section, the Institute only calculated data for 47 states in 2013 and 2014, due to variations in election schedules.
Appendix B: Percentage of Seats with Incumbents, 2013 and 2014
State | Percent of Seats with Incumbents | Rank Among States for Percent of Seats with Incumbents | Percent of Seats in Monetarily Competitive Races |
---|---|---|---|
Alabama | 79% | 36 | 9% |
Alaska | 81% | 27 | 30% |
Arizona | 81% | 31 | 37% |
Arkansas | 70% | 42 | 18% |
California | 67% | 43 | 15% |
Colorado | 72% | 41 | 11% |
Connecticut | 86% | 21 | 51% |
Delaware | 92% | 4 | 20% |
Florida | 88% | 15 | 6% |
Georgien | 90% | 8 | 2% |
Hawaii | 86% | 22 | 20% |
Idaho | 81% | 33 | 11% |
Illinois | 88% | 17 | 12% |
Indiana | 90% | 6 | 14% |
Iowa | 87% | 19 | 17% |
Kansas | 80% | 34 | 17% |
Kentucky | 89% | 11 | 26% |
Maine | 66% | 44 | 56% |
Maryland | 81% | 28 | 12% |
Massachusetts | 88% | 16 | 20% |
Michigan | 66% | 45 | 16% |
Minnesota | 89% | 13 | 42% |
Missouri | 81% | 31 | 12% |
Montana | 62% | 46 | 34% |
Nebraska | 29% | 47 | 46% |
Nevada | 81% | 30 | 17% |
New Hampshire | 92% | 5 | 17% |
New Mexico | 80% | 34 | 21% |
New York | 90% | 9 | 8% |
North Carolina | 89% | 12 | 12% |
North Dakota | 93% | 2 | 29% |
Ohio | 74% | 40 | 4% |
Oklahoma | 76% | 37 | 9% |
Oregon | 76% | 37 | 15% |
Pennsylvania | 88% | 18 | 10% |
Rhode Island | 90% | 7 | 5% |
South Carolina | 90% | 10 | 5% |
South Dakota | 84% | 23 | 22% |
Tennessee | 83% | 26 | 3% |
Texas | 84% | 24 | 4% |
Utah | 83% | 25 | 13% |
Vermont | 93% | 3 | 27% |
Virginia | 87% | 20 | 20% |
Washington | 89% | 14 | 17% |
West Virginia | 94% | 1 | 45% |
Wisconsin | 75% | 39 | 14% |
Wyoming | 81% | 29 | 17% |
Nationwide Total | 83% | 18% |
Appendix C: Average Raised by Top-Funded Legislative Candidates in 47 States, 2013 and 2014
State | Average Raised by Top Legislative Fundraisers | Rank Among States for Average Raised by Top Legislative Fundraisers | Percent of Seats in Monetarily Competitive Races |
---|---|---|---|
Alabama | $211,292 | 11 | 9% |
Alaska | $59,815 | 30 | 30% |
Arizona | $79,255 | 23 | 37% |
Arkansas | $53,588 | 33 | 18% |
California | $1,003,569 | 1 | 15% |
Colorado | $67,367 | 27 | 11% |
Connecticut | $43,258 | 36 | 51% |
Delaware | $46,204 | 35 | 20% |
Florida | $219,583 | 8 | 6% |
Georgien | $77,303 | 24 | 2% |
Hawaii | $66,860 | 28 | 20% |
Idaho | $30,403 | 40 | 11% |
Illinois | $396,282 | 3 | 12% |
Indiana | $117,591 | 18 | 14% |
Iowa | $111,113 | 19 | 17% |
Kansas | $33,792 | 39 | 17% |
Kentucky | $91,375 | 22 | 26% |
Maine | $10,998 | 44 | 56% |
Maryland | $132,079 | 15 | 12% |
Massachusetts | $74,961 | 25 | 20% |
Michigan | $161,252 | 13 | 16% |
Minnesota | $47,779 | 34 | 42% |
Missouri | $131,195 | 16 | 12% |
Montana | $13,619 | 42 | 34% |
Nebraska | $119,866 | 17 | 46% |
Nevada | $218,166 | 9 | 17% |
New Hampshire | $6,528 | 46 | 17% |
New Mexico | $56,497 | 31 | 21% |
New York | $242,279 | 7 | 8% |
North Carolina | $182,605 | 12 | 12% |
North Dakota | $11,327 | 43 | 29% |
Ohio | $266,633 | 5 | 4% |
Oklahoma | $109,450 | 20 | 9% |
Oregon | $273,895 | 4 | 15% |
Pennsylvania | $212,919 | 10 | 10% |
Rhode Island | $34,015 | 38 | 5% |
South Carolina | $35,641 | 37 | 5% |
South Dakota | $15,848 | 41 | 22% |
Tennessee | $109,414 | 21 | 3% |
Texas | $420,762 | 2 | 4% |
Utah | $63,259 | 29 | 13% |
Vermont | $5,317 | 47 | 27% |
Virginia | $251,853 | 6 | 20% |
Washington | $152,954 | 14 | 17% |
West Virginia | $54,006 | 32 | 45% |
Wisconsin | $68,981 | 26 | 14% |
Wyoming | $9,255 | 45 | 17% |
Nationwide Total | $128,477 | 18% |
- 1. A race is considered monetarily competitive if at least one candidate in the race raises half or more of the amount raised by the top fundraiser.
- 2. The National Conference of State Legislatures, “The Term-Limited States,” available from http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/chart-of-term-limits-states.aspx, accessed October 7 2015.
- 3. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Overview of State Laws on Public Financing,” available from http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/public-financing-of-campaigns-overview.aspx accessed October 8, 2015.
- 4. Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine have full public funding, meaning that when candidates opt for public funding they abide by spending limits and are almost exclusively funded by public subsidies. Hawaii and Minnesota have partial public funding programs, meaning candidates can opt to receive public funds and continue private fundraising efforts.
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!