{"id":3182,"date":"2008-05-05T13:28:00","date_gmt":"2008-05-05T19:28:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/05\/spending-personal-wealth-doesnt-equal-victory\/"},"modified":"2008-05-05T13:28:00","modified_gmt":"2008-05-05T19:28:00","slug":"spending-personal-wealth-doesnt-equal-victory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2008\/05\/spending-personal-wealth-doesnt-equal-victory\/","title":{"rendered":"Spending personal wealth doesn’t equal victory"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>Wealthy, self-funded candidates for federal offices rarely win, a recent analysis shows, but the two candidates from New Mexico who have contributed the most to their campaigns this year say they\u2019ll buck that trend. <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The analysis from the Washington<\/st1:city>, D.C.<\/st1:state><\/st1:place> publication Congressional Quarterly, which you can read by clicking here<\/a>, found that, during the 2004 and 2006 election cycles, 54 of 62 candidates for federal office who triggered the so-called Millionaire\u2019s Amendment<\/a> lost. That amendment is activated in House races when a candidate contributes more than $350,000 to his own campaign, and it triples contribution limits for opponents from $2,300 to $6,900.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

In New Mexico, two Democratic U.S. House candidates \u2013 Harry Teague<\/a> in the 2nd Congressional District and Don Wiviott<\/a> in the 3rd Congressional District \u2013 have contributed enough to trigger the Millionaire\u2019s Amendment in those House primaries. Wiviott has loaned his campaign $990,000. Teague has loaned his campaign $684,572.92.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>They are among at least 21 House and Senate candidates nationwide who have contributed enough to their campaigns this election cycle to trigger the Millionaire\u2019s Amendment.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The CQ article doesn\u2019t provide an analysis of why wealthy, self-financing candidates usually lose under the current system, and Albuquerque<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> pollster Brian Sanderoff said it\u2019s difficult to know the reason without a detailed, historical analysis. But the history doesn\u2019t go that far back: The Millionaire\u2019s Amendment wasn\u2019t enacted until 2002.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Teague said he knows the reason, adding that the losing trend of wealthy self-financers is one he\u2019ll beat.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cMost of those candidates had never run for elected office, while I have run successfully in a Republican county commission district,\u201d Teague said in a statement released by his office. \u201cFurther, many \u2018self-financed\u2019 candidates have not enjoyed widespread financial support, whereas my campaign has already raised more money from outside contributors than any Democratic primary campaign in the 2nd Congressional District. I am sure these differences will be demonstrated when we win on June 3 and in November.\u201d<\/p>\n

Spokesman Webster Cash said Wiviott is similarly confident because he has earned strong, grassroots support.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cThe influence of money in campaigns is dwarfed by a candidate\u2019s ability to personally connect with voters,\u201d Cash said. \u201c\u2026 <\/span>The fact that certain campaigns share similar attributes is not an indicator of how successful they will be on Election Day. Our campaign has the advantage of momentum and a powerful grassroots organization that we are confident will propel us to victory in both June and November.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

In the 3rd District<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Wiviott primary opponent Ben R. Luj\u00e1n<\/a> was able to capitalize on the increased contribution limits during the first quarter of 2008. He had a number of contributions greater than $2,300, including several for $6,900 each. Another Wiviott primary opponent, Benny Shendo Jr.<\/a>, has also accepted $6,900 apiece from two individuals. But Wiviott has vastly outspent his opponents.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Luj\u00e1n spokesman Mark Nicastre said candidates who can lend themselves lots of money \u201ccan afford high-priced consultants, but money can\u2019t buy the support of the people of New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state>.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cWe knew we were going to be outspent, but there are things we needed to do to keep our lead and remain the frontrunner, and we have done that,\u201d he said. \u201cThe support we have received from the leading environmental organizations in the country and from working men and women through organized labor has helped counteract our opponent\u2019s ability to fund himself.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Nicastre said Wiviott\u2019s self-financing highlights the need for mandatory public financing to level the playing field.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Todd Doherty, Shendo\u2019s campaign manager, said voters know that money is a \u201ccorrupting force in politics.\u201d He characterized the 3rd District race as being between Wiviott, who he called \u201ca rich land developer on an ego trip;\u201d Luj\u00e1n, who he called the \u201ccompletely unqualified\u201d son of the speaker of the state House and someone \u201cwho has never earned a job on his own;\u201d and Shendo, \u201cwho is actually qualified to credibly represent us in Washington, D.C.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cWe are simply letting real voters meet the candidates, all the candidates, and letting them see the obvious,\u201d Doherty said.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Rudy Martin<\/a>, another 3rd District Democratic candidate, said voters there are disenfranchised because their economic situation is poor. He said television ads may affect voters in urban areas, but rural voters will pick the candidate who best represents their values, regardless of money.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cI have intentionally limited funds to show my respect for the people of the district,\u201d Martin said. \u201cI represent the people who do not have the big-business monies or the political connections.\u201d<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

In the 2nd District<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Teague triggered the Millionaire\u2019s Amendment last week, so no public report indicates whether primary opponent Bill McCamley<\/a> has been able to capitalize on the increased contribution limits. McCamley campaign spokesman Michael Ward said the CQ article, as well as the failed campaigns of Mitt Romney<\/a> and others, prove that money is necessary but not sufficient to win. <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

McCamley, like Luj\u00e1n in the 3rd District, has raised a respectable amount of money that in many years might have made him the top fundraiser in the race. Self-financing candidates change the dynamic, however, and Teague has been running television ads for several weeks, while voters have yet to see a McCamley commercial.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

McCamley mocked the $475,000 Teague loaned his campaign in April by loaning himself $47.50 to buy gas. It was a publicity stunt that earned McCamley some media attention, including coverage by newspaper and television outlets.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Asked what advantage Teague\u2019s money gives his campaign, Ward said it will allow Teague to air more television ads, but it also \u201cdraws attention to the fact that he is an oil millionaire who profits from the high gas prices that hurt middle-class New Mexicans.\u201d The even bigger problem for Teague, Ward said, is that he is refusing to debate McCamley. McCamley has said Teague\u2019s rejection of his recent debate challenge, combined with his self-financing, creates the appearance that Teague is trying to buy the seat.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\u201cHow does (Teague) plan to stand up to the Republicans in November or his oil-industry contributors if he were to make it to Washington<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> if he won\u2019t stand up to Bill now?\u201d Ward asked.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

As I\u2019ve disclosed in the past, I\u2019m friends with McCamley. Click here<\/a> to read about that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Wealthy, self-funded candidates for federal offices rarely win, a recent analysis shows, but the two candidates from New Mexico who have contributed the most to their campaigns this year say they\u2019ll buck that trend. The analysis from the Washington, D.C. publication Congressional Quarterly, which you can read by clicking here, found that, during the 2004 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3182","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3182","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3182"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3182\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3182"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3182"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3182"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}