Übersicht
Incumbency: the invisible hand that shapes democracy in America. It has consistently been the single most influential factor in elections for state legislatures going back at least to the turn of the century. And in races where an incumbent ran and had a fundraising advantage, the combined power of the two factors was nigh unbeatable.
Incumbent legislators in the 2015 and 2016 elections luxuriated in a 92 percent chance of success, a rate that has seen little deviation in the past fifteen years. The advantage enjoyed by candidates who were just monetary leaders dipped down to 80 percent, a few points below the average of the past eight cycles.
Figure 1: Success Rates in Contested General Elections for State Legislatures, 2001–2016
https://public.tableau.com/profile/nimsp#!/vizhome/SuccessRatesinContestedLegislativeStateElections2001-2016/Dashboard1
The National Institute on Money in State Politics analyzed legislative races in 47 states1 in 2015 and 2016 and found:
- In 2015 and 2016 elections, incumbents ran for four of every five legislative seats.
- Four of ten legislative incumbents ran unopposed in 2015 and 2016.
- Nine of ten legislative incumbents were reelected in 2015 and 2016.
- In 2015 and 2016 contested general races, legislative incumbents raised 51 percent more on average than their challengers or those running for open seats.
- In 2015 and 2016 legislative races, successful non-incumbent monetary leaders raised 9 percent more on average than successful incumbent monetary leaders.
- Legislative candidates with neither advantage of fundraising nor incumbency were successful only 9 percent of the time in 2015 and 2016.
Methodology
In order to determine the influence of incumbency and fundraising in legislative races during the 2015 and 2016 elections, the Institute calculated the success rates of all candidates, grouped by incumbency status, comparative fundraising advantage, and instances where a candidate had either both or neither of these factors.
The success rate for legislative incumbents was determined by dividing the number of winning incumbents by the total number of incumbents running. Unless otherwise stated, this number refers to incumbents running in a contested general election only; this restriction was used to more accurately compare incumbents alongside challengers and candidates in open races.
Monetary leaders were marked as the candidate who raised the most in a contested general election for a specific seat. In districts with more than one seat, this designation was given to as many candidates as there were seats up for election. In cases with a fundraising tie, the designation was given to both candidates. In races where none of the candidates raised money, the designation was given to all candidates. A fundraising advantage was not assigned to candidates who only had opposition in the primary election, or who lost their primary.
Six states examined in this report have multiple-seat legislative districts:2 Arizona, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and West Virginia. Races in these states were considered contested when there were more candidates running in the general election than there were seats.
In states where candidates unopposed in the general election do not appear on the ballot, they are declared the default winner of the general election. In California, Louisiana, and Washington, there is no partisan primary; rather, all candidates for a seat run at once and the top two candidates are sent to a runoff election. A runoff is avoided in Louisiana if a candidate received more than 50 percent of the vote in the primary.
Write-in candidates were excluded from this report because information about such candidates is inconsistent across states and hence is often incomplete.
For more information on legislative races, see this report’s sister analysis, Monetary Competitiveness in State Legislative Races, 2015 and 2016. Get a broader look at state elections in the 2016 Candidate Elections Overview.
The Supremacy of Incumbency
The advantages bestowed upon incumbents are numerous and interrelated: increased access to a network of political party and financial resources, higher name recognition, and a baseline of media attention through legislative work and constituency outreach. In 2015 and 2016, these factors worked in concert to reelect incumbents to state legislatures at the overwhelming rate of 92 percent.
Figure 2: Success Rates of Incumbents Running for Reelection to State Legislatures, 2015–2016
https://public.tableau.com/profile/nimsp#!/vizhome/SuccessRatesofIncumbentsRunningforReelectiontoStateLegislatures2015-2016/Dashboard1
Incumbents experienced a 90 percent or greater success rate in 36 states—and this only in contested general elections; more broadly, 4 in 10 incumbents ran unopposed.
With numbers like these, it would appear that challenging an incumbent requires a potent mix of hope and confidence—or maybe just money.
The Fundraising Advantage
A close second to incumbency in influence was monetary dominance. In 36 states, the legislative candidate who raised the most money won their race 80 percent or more of the time. Monetary leaders in 19 of these states experienced a success rate of more than 90 percent. Hawaii and Utah topped the list at 100 and 97 percent, respectively, followed by South Carolina and Texas at 96 percent.
The 11 states where monetary leaders fell below 80 percent success include Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine—the only three states that offer a clean elections program with full public funding for legislative candidates.3
Figure 3: Success Rates of Monetary Leaders Running for State Legislature, 2015–2016
https://public.tableau.com/profile/nimsp#!/vizhome/SuccessRatesofMonetaryLeadersRunningforStateLegislature2015-2016/Dashboard1
The most effective combination of factors for winning a legislative race was incumbency and monetary leadership. In 2015 and 2016, 95 percent of dual-advantage candidates won their races. In eight states, the ascendancy was total; incumbent monetary leaders won every race they appeared in.
Non-incumbent monetary leaders saw much greater risk in their return on investment. Only in Utah and Hawaii did these legislative candidates attain a 100 percent success rate. In 35 other states their success was less than 80 percent. Across the country, successful non-incumbent monetary leaders raised 9 percent more on average than did successful incumbent monetary leaders in contested races.
When Money and Incumbency Were Not Enough
A candidate can appear to have all the advantages in a race and still inexplicably lose, much like the Atlanta Falcons in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl LI.
In contested 2015 and 2016 general elections, 136 legislative candidates who held an advantage in both incumbency and fundraising were defeated—just 5 percent of candidates who held both advantages.
- 83 dual-advantage losers were Democrats4; 49 were Republicans.
- 98 dual-advantage losers were house/assembly legislators; 38 were senators.
- On average, losing incumbent monetary leaders raised $173,929 more than their victorious challengers.5
In a few states, these upsets shifted party control of the legislature:
- In Minnesota, 6 DFL6 senators lost their seats to Republican challengers, giving the Republicans narrow control of the state senate. Two incumbent monetary leaders from the house, one from each major party, also lost.
- The Kentucky House, the last Democratic-controlled chamber in the South, swung to the right as five Democratic incumbent monetary leaders failed to hold their seats.7
A Closer Look
Illinois
Illinois had an expensive 2016, and Illinois incumbents in particular. Candidates in state legislative elections in the Land of Lincoln raised almost $168 million in 2016. This was more than any other state, though ever-reliable California was a close second at $166.1 million.
Illinois had one of the lowest percentages of contested legislative races, with only 37 percent of general election seats involving more than one contender. Incumbents in these races did not seem to get the memo that they were unopposed; as a group, they raised $58.6 million. To compare, the average amount raised by unopposed incumbents in the other 46 states was just $106,648. House Republican Leader Jim Durkin led this spike in Illinois fundraising by pulling in $19.5 million for his own unopposed race.8 Durkin’s sum helped incumbents’ war chests account for 70 percent of all money raised in Illinois in 2016.
But money couldn’t buy everything, as evidenced by the $11.5 million raised by incumbent monetary leaders who went on to lose their seat:
- Democrat Kate Cloonen lost reelection to House District 79 after raising $3.6 million for the race. Her opponent, Republican Lindsay Parkhurst, raised almost $2 million.
- Republican Dwight Kay raised nearly $2.4 million for his reelection to House District 112, but lost to Democratic contender Katie Stuart, who raised $2 million.
- Democrat John Bradley lost House District 117 after raising $2.9 million against Republican candidate Dave Severin, who raised $1.5 million.
- Democratic senator Gary Forby raised $2.6 million for his reelection to Senate District 59, but was beaten by first-time Republican candidate Dale Fowler, who raised $1.6 million.
Hawaii
In Hawaii, 108 candidates ran for 64 legislative seats and collectively raised $4.6 million. Of the 64 seats, only 38 were contested.
Hawaii has the distinction of being the only state with a 100 percent success rate for monetary leaders of all stripes: incumbent, challenger, or open-seat contenders. Candidates running in open races spent an average of 13 percent more to win their seat than did incumbents or challengers.
- Incumbent Democrat Jo Jordan from House District 44 didn’t make the cut in the state’s primary, ceding the seat to fellow Democrat and eventual winner Cedric Gates.
- Republican Minority Floor Leader Feki Pouha lost his seat in House District 47 to Democratic challenger Sean Quinlan.
- Senator Sam Slom of District 9, the lone Republican in Hawaii’s state senate for many years, lost his seat to Democratic challenger Stanley Chang. Chang outraised Slom by an almost 3-to-1 margin.
Nebraska and North Dakota
On the other end of the spectrum, two states consistently served up relative resistance to both incumbency and fundraising prowess. Candidates who possessed one or both advantages failed to achieve higher than 66 percent success in either state in 2016.
*Nebraska differs from most states by having a nominally nonpartisan, unicameral legislature.
Candidates with neither advantage experienced a 41 and 42 percent success rate in North Dakota and Nebraska, respectively—a notable difference from the national average of just 9 percent.
Appendix A: Top Fundraising Legislative Incumbents in Contested General Election Races, 2015 & 2016
State | Legislative Incumbents in Contested General | Legislative Incumbent Monetary Leaders in Contested General | Percent of Legislative Incumbents Who Were Monetary Leaders |
---|---|---|---|
Alaska | 21 | 16 | 76% |
Arkansas | 26 | 19 | 73% |
Arizona | 44 | 35 | 80% |
California | 71 | 65 | 92% |
Colorado | 50 | 43 | 86% |
Connecticut | 127 | 95 | 75% |
Delaware | 25 | 24 | 96% |
Florida | 51 | 50 | 98% |
Georgien | 40 | 38 | 95% |
Hawaii | 34 | 32 | 94% |
Iowa | 79 | 71 | 90% |
Idaho | 51 | 47 | 92% |
Illinois | 50 | 47 | 94% |
Indiana | 72 | 69 | 96% |
Kansas | 74 | 62 | 84% |
Kentucky | 59 | 42 | 71% |
Louisiana | 6 | 6 | 100% |
Massachusetts | 51 | 47 | 92% |
Maine | 128 | 76 | 59% |
Michigan | 68 | 65 | 96% |
Minnesota | 161 | 147 | 91% |
Missouri | 67 | 64 | 96% |
Mississippi | 46 | 45 | 98% |
Montana | 52 | 42 | 81% |
North Carolina | 77 | 69 | 90% |
North Dakota | 47 | 41 | 87% |
Nebraska | 10 | 9 | 90% |
New Hampshire | 257 | 213 | 83% |
New Mexico | 38 | 32 | 84% |
Nevada | 30 | 25 | 83% |
New York | 121 | 115 | 95% |
Ohio | 60 | 56 | 93% |
Oklahoma | 53 | 51 | 96% |
Oregon | 45 | 43 | 93% |
Pennsylvania | 107 | 99 | 93% |
Rhode Island | 50 | 43 | 86% |
South Carolina | 31 | 30 | 97% |
South Dakota | 46 | 41 | 89% |
Tennessee | 61 | 59 | 97% |
Texas | 64 | 60 | 94% |
Utah | 47 | 47 | 100% |
Virginia | 47 | 42 | 89% |
Vermont | 96 | 63 | 66% |
Washington | 72 | 65 | 90% |
Wisconsin | 57 | 51 | 89% |
West Virginia | 83 | 60 | 72% |
Wyoming | 38 | 32 | 84% |
Total | 2990 | 2492 | 83% |
No regular state legislative elections were held Alabama and Maryland in 2015 or 2016. New Jersey was also excluded from this analysis because many candidates in that state raise money through joint candidate committees, making side-by-side analysis with other states impractical.
Appendix B: Money and Incumbency Advantage in Contested Legislative Races in General Elections, 2015 & 2016
State | Success Rate of Monetary Legislative Leaders | Success Rate of Legislative Incumbents | Success Rate of Legislative Incumbent Monetary Leaders |
---|---|---|---|
Alaska | 79% | 90% | 94% |
Arkansas | 87% | 77% | 95% |
Arizona | 77% | 91% | 91% |
California | 91% | 93% | 98% |
Colorado | 94% | 92% | 100% |
Connecticut | 69% | 92% | 93% |
Delaware | 93% | 96% | 96% |
Florida | 94% | 94% | 96% |
Georgien | 89% | 90% | 92% |
Hawaii | 100% | 94% | 100% |
Iowa | 86% | 90% | 94% |
Idaho | 91% | 96% | 96% |
Illinois | 86% | 88% | 91% |
Indiana | 94% | 99% | 99% |
Kansas | 89% | 84% | 95% |
Kentucky | 81% | 69% | 86% |
Louisiana | 58% | 50% | 50% |
Massachusetts | 92% | 100% | 100% |
Maine | 67% | 90% | 97% |
Michigan | 87% | 99% | 98% |
Minnesota | 85% | 93% | 95% |
Missouri | 93% | 100% | 100% |
Mississippi | 85% | 91% | 91% |
Montana | 78% | 92% | 95% |
North Carolina | 89% | 92% | 96% |
North Dakota | 59% | 64% | 66% |
Nebraska | 59% | 50% | 56% |
New Hampshire | 54% | 91% | 91% |
New Mexico | 93% | 79% | 94% |
Nevada | 91% | 77% | 92% |
New York | 91% | 98% | 98% |
Ohio | 94% | 98% | 98% |
Oklahoma | 91% | 100% | 100% |
Oregon | 92% | 100% | 100% |
Pennsylvania | 90% | 94% | 97% |
Rhode Island | 80% | 96% | 95% |
South Carolina | 96% | 100% | 100% |
South Dakota | 84% | 96% | 95% |
Tennessee | 94% | 97% | 97% |
Texas | 96% | 94% | 98% |
Utah | 97% | 96% | 96% |
Virginia | 85% | 100% | 100% |
Vermont | 65% | 88% | 89% |
Washington | 82% | 96% | 97% |
Wisconsin | 88% | 96% | 98% |
West Virginia | 70% | 84% | 88% |
Wyoming | 80% | 95% | 97% |
Total | 80% | 92% | 95% |
No regular state legislative elections were held Alabama and Maryland in 2015 or 2016. New Jersey was also excluded from this analysis because many candidates in that state raise money through joint candidate committees, making side-by-side analysis with other states impractical.
Appendix C: Success Rate of All Incumbent Legislative Candidates Through Primary and General Elections, 2015 & 2016
State | Legislative Winners | Incumbent Legislative Winners | Percent of Legislative Seats Won by Incumbents | All Legislative Incumbents | Percent of Legislative Incumbents Who Won* |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alaska | 50 | 31 | 62% | 38 | 82% |
Arkansas | 117 | 92 | 79% | 100 | 92% |
Arizona | 90 | 55 | 61% | 63 | 87% |
California | 100 | 69 | 69% | 74 | 93% |
Colorado | 83 | 53 | 64% | 59 | 90% |
Connecticut | 187 | 150 | 80% | 162 | 93% |
Delaware | 52 | 48 | 92% | 49 | 98% |
Florida | 160 | 93 | 58% | 96 | 97% |
Georgien | 236 | 204 | 86% | 213 | 96% |
Hawaii | 64 | 58 | 91% | 61 | 95% |
Iowa | 125 | 103 | 82% | 111 | 93% |
Idaho | 105 | 87 | 83% | 96 | 91% |
Illinois | 158 | 136 | 86% | 143 | 95% |
Indiana | 125 | 104 | 83% | 107 | 97% |
Kansas | 165 | 103 | 62% | 129 | 80% |
Kentucky | 119 | 89 | 75% | 109 | 82% |
Louisiana | 144 | 104 | 72% | 110 | 95% |
Massachusetts | 200 | 186 | 93% | 190 | 98% |
Maine | 186 | 134 | 72% | 148 | 91% |
Michigan | 110 | 67 | 61% | 68 | 99% |
Minnesota | 200 | 154 | 77% | 169 | 91% |
Missouri | 180 | 136 | 76% | 140 | 97% |
Mississippi | 175 | 133 | 76% | 145 | 92% |
Montana | 125 | 68 | 54% | 74 | 92% |
North Carolina | 170 | 137 | 81% | 145 | 94% |
North Dakota | 69 | 35 | 51% | 54 | 65% |
Nebraska | 25 | 8 | 32% | 14 | 57% |
New Hampshire | 424 | 262 | 62% | 295 | 89% |
New Mexico | 112 | 94 | 84% | 103 | 91% |
Nevada | 53 | 31 | 58% | 40 | 78% |
New York | 213 | 186 | 87% | 191 | 97% |
Ohio | 115 | 83 | 72% | 85 | 98% |
Oklahoma | 125 | 82 | 66% | 85 | 96% |
Oregon | 75 | 58 | 77% | 58 | 100% |
Pennsylvania | 228 | 197 | 86% | 207 | 95% |
Rhode Island | 113 | 97 | 86% | 105 | 92% |
South Carolina | 170 | 139 | 82% | 148 | 94% |
South Dakota | 105 | 60 | 57% | 64 | 94% |
Tennessee | 115 | 103 | 90% | 107 | 96% |
Texas | 166 | 135 | 81% | 145 | 93% |
Utah | 90 | 69 | 77% | 74 | 93% |
Virginia | 140 | 117 | 84% | 121 | 97% |
Vermont | 180 | 133 | 74% | 146 | 91% |
Washington | 123 | 91 | 74% | 95 | 96% |
Wisconsin | 115 | 100 | 87% | 102 | 98% |
West Virginia | 117 | 74 | 63% | 88 | 84% |
Wyoming | 75 | 49 | 65% | 54 | 91% |
Total | 6374 | 4797 | 75% | 5180 | 93% |
No regular state legislative elections were held Alabama and Maryland in 2015 or 2016. New Jersey was also excluded from this analysis because many candidates in that state raise money through joint candidate committees, making side-by-side analysis with other states impractical.
*Incumbents who did not advance beyond the primary and convention are factored into these percentages.
Appendix D: Contested Legislative Seats in General Elections, 2015 & 2016
State | Number of Legislative Seats Up for Election | Number of Contested Legislative Seats | Percent of Legislative Seats in Contested Races |
---|---|---|---|
Alaska | 50 | 33 | 66% |
Arkansas | 117 | 38 | 32% |
Arizona | 90 | 65 | 72% |
California | 100 | 97 | 97% |
Colorado | 83 | 72 | 87% |
Connecticut | 187 | 150 | 80% |
Delaware | 52 | 27 | 52% |
Florida | 160 | 84 | 53% |
Georgien | 236 | 45 | 19% |
Hawaii | 64 | 38 | 59% |
Iowa | 125 | 92 | 74% |
Idaho | 105 | 66 | 63% |
Illinois | 158 | 59 | 37% |
Indiana | 125 | 90 | 72% |
Kansas | 165 | 112 | 68% |
Kentucky | 119 | 70 | 59% |
Louisiana | 144 | 19 | 13% |
Massachusetts | 200 | 59 | 30% |
Maine | 186 | 165 | 89% |
Michigan | 110 | 110 | 100% |
Minnesota | 201 | 195 | 97% |
Missouri | 180 | 97 | 54% |
Mississippi | 174 | 62 | 36% |
Montana | 125 | 99 | 79% |
North Carolina | 170 | 98 | 58% |
North Dakota | 69 | 63 | 91% |
Nebraska | 25 | 21 | 84% |
New Hampshire | 424 | 377 | 89% |
New Mexico | 112 | 44 | 39% |
Nevada | 53 | 44 | 83% |
New York | 213 | 143 | 67% |
Ohio | 115 | 87 | 76% |
Oklahoma | 125 | 92 | 74% |
Oregon | 75 | 60 | 80% |
Pennsylvania | 228 | 125 | 55% |
Rhode Island | 113 | 59 | 52% |
South Carolina | 170 | 46 | 27% |
South Dakota | 105 | 76 | 72% |
Tennessee | 115 | 68 | 59% |
Texas | 166 | 77 | 46% |
Utah | 90 | 61 | 68% |
Virginia | 140 | 61 | 44% |
Vermont | 180 | 121 | 67% |
Washington | 123 | 97 | 79% |
Wisconsin | 115 | 65 | 57% |
West Virginia | 117 | 113 | 97% |
Wyoming | 75 | 58 | 77% |
Total | 6374 | 4000 | 63% |
No regular state legislative elections were held Alabama and Maryland in 2015 or 2016. New Jersey was also excluded from this analysis because many candidates in that state raise money through joint candidate committees, making side-by-side analysis with other states impractical.
Appendix E: Effect of Fundraising Advantage on Non-Incumbent Candidates in Contested Legislative Races, 2015 & 2016
State | Legislative Candidates With Neither Advantage in Contested General Elections | Success Rate of Legislative Candidates With Neither Advantage | Legislative Non-Incumbents With Monetary Advantage in Contested General Elections | Success Rate of Legislative Non-Incumbents With Monetary Advantage |
---|---|---|---|---|
Alaska | 37 | 8% | 17 | 65% |
Arkansas | 34 | 9% | 19 | 79% |
Arizona | 39 | 18% | 30 | 60% |
California | 92 | 8% | 32 | 75% |
Colorado | 79 | 1% | 29 | 86% |
Connecticut | 136 | 13% | 56 | 29% |
Delaware | 30 | 3% | 3 | 67% |
Florida | 88 | 6% | 34 | 91% |
Georgien | 43 | 9% | 7 | 71% |
Hawaii | 42 | 0% | 6 | 100% |
Iowa | 103 | 9% | 21 | 57% |
Idaho | 67 | 3% | 19 | 79% |
Illinois | 56 | 13% | 12 | 67% |
Indiana | 100 | 2% | 21 | 81% |
Kansas | 107 | 8% | 50 | 82% |
Kentucky | 54 | 15% | 28 | 75% |
Louisiana | 20 | 40% | 13 | 62% |
Massachusetts | 59 | 2% | 12 | 58% |
Maine | 118 | 10% | 90 | 42% |
Michigan | 146 | 7% | 46 | 72% |
Minnesota | 188 | 10% | 48 | 56% |
Missouri | 111 | 4% | 33 | 79% |
Mississippi | 63 | 13% | 17 | 71% |
Montana | 94 | 14% | 58 | 66% |
North Carolina | 99 | 6% | 29 | 72% |
North Dakota | 56 | 41% | 22 | 45% |
Nebraska | 19 | 42% | 13 | 62% |
New Hampshire | 100 | 32% | 351 | 32% |
New Mexico | 38 | 8% | 12 | 92% |
Nevada | 49 | 8% | 19 | 89% |
New York | 163 | 4% | 29 | 62% |
Ohio | 87 | 2% | 30 | 87% |
Oklahoma | 108 | 6% | 41 | 80% |
Oregon | 83 | 4% | 17 | 71% |
Pennsylvania | 124 | 6% | 26 | 62% |
Rhode Island | 61 | 8% | 16 | 38% |
South Carolina | 47 | 2% | 16 | 88% |
South Dakota | 67 | 10% | 35 | 71% |
Tennessee | 72 | 3% | 9 | 78% |
Texas | 94 | 2% | 17 | 88% |
Utah | 69 | 3% | 14 | 100% |
Virginia | 67 | 6% | 19 | 53% |
Vermont | 84 | 14% | 62 | 40% |
Washington | 90 | 12% | 32 | 52% |
Wisconsin | 64 | 5% | 14 | 50% |
West Virginia | 97 | 18% | 53 | 49% |
Wyoming | 54 | 11% | 27 | 59% |
Total | 3698 | 9% | 1604 | 57% |
No regular state legislative elections were held Alabama and Maryland in 2015 or 2016. New Jersey was also excluded from this analysis because many candidates in that state raise money through joint candidate committees, making side-by-side analysis with other states impractical.
- 1. No regular state legislative elections were held Alabama and Maryland in 2015 or 2016. New Jersey was also excluded from this analysis because many candidates in that state raise money through joint candidate committees, making side-by-side analysis with other states impractical.
- 2. New Jersey and Maryland also have multiple-seat districts, but these states were not included in this report (see above note).
- 3. National Conference of State Legislatures, “Overview of State Laws on Public Financing: Public Financing for Candidates,” available from http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/public-financing-of-campaigns-overview.aspx#candidates, accessed September 26, 2017.
- 4. This number counts a Progressive Democratic candidate in Vermont as part of the Democratic total.
- 5. This number was calculated using only states with single-seat districts.
- 6. The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party (DFL) is Minnesota’s version of the Democratic Party.
- 7. Greenblatt, Alan, “Republicans Add to Their Dominance of State Legislatures,” Governing, November 9, 2016, available from http://www.governing.com/topics/elections/gov-republicans-add-dominance-state-legislatures.html, accessed September 26, 2017.
- 8. To learn more about Durkin and his astonishing fundraising see the Institute’s blog, Durkin Breaks Legislative Fundraising Record in Uncontested Race.
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!