Out-of-State Money Floods to Incumbent Democrats in Virginia’s Competitive Congressional Races

by James C. Sherlock

I have the utmost respect for political candidates as a class.

They are people who put themselves in the arena while most are spectators.

The American people I think agree.

But by huge margins we decry the amount of money in political campaigns.

  • We deplore the fact that the money required discourages many persons from running who cannot self-fund and refuse to dial for dollars;
  • Most consider vast donations of money to be inevitably corrupting. At a minimum, access by big donors is paid for and assured;
  • Finally, voters would prefer to hear the messages of candidates, directly. Not just the loudest ads amplified by money.

I have shared those views all of my life.

Virginia’s nearly unique problem is unlimited funding, including unlimited out-of-state funding. Most other states have restrictions on both.

Why not Virginia?

  • Incumbent politicians of both parties in Virginia’s General Assembly, who would need to vote for such restrictions, benefit disproportionally from the current lack of them;
  • Campaign cash is also a windfall for local and regional media, who are struggling, and thus disinclined to advocate for change.

The result this year: disproportionate incumbent campaign money, as always, is working to tip the scales. Out-of-state money is attempting to stand on them in the races of the state’s two most vulnerable Democrats.

Too expensive for many people to participate. My father was politically engaged all of his life.

In 1952, he worked hard in our Northern Virginia district for a Democratic candidate for the House of Representatives. That candidate lost and died almost immediately after the election.

It turned out he had borrowed against his life insurance to help fund his campaign, and his family was left in need. His campaign staff and friends raised money for them. I have never forgotten it.

Campaigning costs too much today because there is too much money chasing too few candidates. Classic inflation.

Here is a complete spreadsheet of donations to all eleven races as of September 30.  You will see that the money chases incumbents, and catches them.

CD 10. In one interesting story, retired Navy Captain Hung Cao is challenging Democratic incumbent Jennifer Wexton in Congressional District 10, centered in Loudoun and Prince William counties.

Unsurprisingly, she has out-raised him by more than a million dollars overall.

But if you go to VPAP’s Congressional donations by state page, you will see that Cao has raised nearly as much out-of-state money as Wexton. He even out-raised her in California, with almost 1,200 donations that averaged only $130 each. Asian-American voters like him, his life story and his message.

Wexton’s donations from the sunshine state averaged $945 each.

Sabato still considers Wexton safe. Probably.

Competitive House races. As rated by Larry Sabato’s Center for Politics assessment (updated today), Virginia has two competitive elections for the House of Representatives. Those are:

  • Luria (D)/Kiggins (R) in Congressional District 2 (rated tossup); and
  • Spanberger (D)/Vega(R) in Congressional District 7 (rated leans D).

Total money raised by Luria and Spanberger exceeded that raised by their opponents by a ratios of 3.4:1 in each race. A statistical oddity, but not uncommon incumbent advantages.

In those races, out-of-state donations favored the two Democratic incumbents by nearly 7-to-1, an $11.7 million advantage. Luria raised 61% of her money out of state; Spanberger 55%.

Cash balances on September 30 in the CD2 race: Luria $3,020,971; Kiggans $433,578

Bottom line. If you lived here in the 2nd and watched local TV, you would think Elaine Luria had bought the stations, not just commercial time.

I predict Jen Kiggans will win down here against that tide. If she does so, she will demonstrate that a huge money advantage is not always everything.

But it is always a lot.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

49 responses to “Out-of-State Money Floods to Incumbent Democrats in Virginia’s Competitive Congressional Races”

  1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
    f/k/a_tmtfairfax

    Real campaign finance reform would limit campaign contributions to living human beings, who are U.S. citizens living in the area where the candidate is running. Presidential campaigns can receive from money from any of the 50 states. Statewide offices, including Governor and U.S. Senator, can receive money from anyone living in the same state. Candidates for U.S. Representatives and state legislature seats can receive money only from residents of the election district.

    No PACs and no bundling. Nothing from any for-profit or nonprofit organization or any affiliate thereof. The legislation should cover both cash and in-kind contributions.

    And to avoid the 1st Amendment issues, the law would regulate the receipt of these contributions except for making it a crime to misrepresent the identity of the contributor or her/his residence. Both Congress and each state legislature should pass the same law.

    It would be legal to make independent expenditures so long as there is no coordination between the person/entity and the candidate. Coordination shall consist of any meeting or communication between the person or entity making the expenditure and the candidate or anyone working on or openly assisting with the campaign. Making such expenditure and concealing any coordination would be a crime. So, an “independent” person or employee or agent of the entity cannot attend a candidate’s fundraiser or confer with campaign staff.

    1. DJRippert Avatar

      Excellent recommendation.

    2. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      First Amendment barriers are enormous. Overcoming Citizens United in the present SCOTUS highly questionable. Limiting in-state contributions to district residents creates have and have not jurisdictions and elevates wealthier contributors without finite individual limits. State representatives brief is by definition broader.

      1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
        James C. Sherlock

        We are one of only 9 states with fully unlimited campaign contribution limits. There is plenty of room underneath Citizens United to tighter ours up. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/Elections/Contribution-Limits-to-Candidates-2019-2020.pdf?ver=2019-10-02-132802-117

        1. VaNavVet Avatar

          And one of the few states to actually have a few competitive districts that were not drawn to protect the incumbent party.

      2. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        I agree. That’s why I focus on the receipt of the campaign contributions. We already prohibit candidates from accepting funds from accepting corporate contributions (except in Virginia state races) and from foreigners.

        I don’t see a problem with have and have-not districts. If one wants to represent a low-income rural area or a poor inner-city district, deal with it.

        I don’t have a problem limiting the amount of money that a person can give. And people with money have always had the ability to spend it on running elected office. Just ask Glenn Youngkin or Mark Warner. As JFK used to say, life isn’t fair.

        Citizens United is reality and appropriate in my mind since access to electronic media makes any corporation or entity equal to traditional media. But I do think it’s constitutional to prohibit coordination of efforts.

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          There remains some question about the Constitutional rights of persons known as corporations. Little is equal or equitable in that regard. Acceptance of have-not districts adds to the gerrymander box another criterion.

          1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            If the Washington Post can make its views known on the Internet and make editorial decisions about what to report and what to write, what is the difference when Meta, Amazon, or Exxon Mobil does it on the Internet or otherwise?

            The changes in technology and people’s use of technology have blurred the differences between the media and other entities. The media clearly publishes in a manner to advocate its views, be they left or right. And nonprofits, e.g., Planned Parenthood or the NRA, do the same. Given these facts, shouldn’t they all be treated the same? (That’s why I think Section 230 protections should be removed from Internet platforms. They operate like the media and should not have special protections that the media or anyone else doesn’t have.)

            I also struggle as to why candidates have some right to have “equal access” to campaign funding. Candidates in Beverly Hills will always have access to more money than candidates in South Central LA. Restricting campaign contributions to residents of the election district will force candidates to focus on what the local residents have interest in and not what rich people around the country think.

          2. M. Purdy Avatar

            I think have some misconceptions about what 230 does and does not do. 230 protects internet platforms from liability of third party content that they don’t contribute to, not their own content. If you remove that protections form online platforms, you get less speech overall. Traditional media has the same protection, i.e. they can’t be sued for third party content that they don’t themselves contribute to.

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Correct. But for the newspaper analogy, if someone writes a letter to the Ed and defames someone in it, is the paper responsible?

          4. M. Purdy Avatar

            Newspapers are publishers, so they would be liable to the extent they exercised editorial control or contributed to the letter and published it with knowledge of, or no inquiry into, its untruthfulness. CDA 230 applies to third party content on interactive web services, so it applies to newspapers online too and the comments posted on the articles. But admittedly not an expert.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            not to bug you, so a Newspaper print/online has to vett the letters to the Ed as well as opinion columns to ensure the content did not leave them exposed to liability?

            Sounds like something not ever enforced…. no?

          6. M. Purdy Avatar

            Yes, but remember that the liability hurdle is very high b/c of NYT v. Sullivan. It’s basically impossible to win a judgment against a publisher re: a public figure as long as they due some minor level of diligence to ensure truthfulness.

          7. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
            f/k/a_tmtfairfax

            As much as I dislike the MSM, they are treated unfairly vis a vis entities like Facebook or Yahoo, for example. Both broadcasters and newspapers exercise editorial judgment in determining what to broadcast or publish. As a result, they can be and are sued. For example, the suit by Nick Sandmann against the Washington Post, which the latter settled.

            Nicole Eramo, a former associate dean at UVA, sued Rolling Stone magazine and its reporter Sabrina Rubin Erdely about a story concerning a gang rape that didn’t happen. The juries awarded Ms. Eramo $1 M and $2 M respectively. The parties later settled.

            ABC News settled with a South Dakota-based meat producer Beef Products Inc. for more than $177 million in 2017 related to a story about alleged “pink slime” in beef products.

            When Internet platforms exercise editorial judgment, they too should be treated like media companies.

            But even more significant, IMO, is potential liability for not treating 3rd-party postings consistently with their published standards. If a platform says they won’t remove content based on the political views expressed therein and then later be found out to have done that, they should be liable. It’s also grounds for the FTC to nail them for false advertising.

            One the biggest problems in the United States is the failure to have one set of rules that apply to everyone similarly situated.

          8. M. Purdy Avatar

            You’d actually be creating an extreme scenario if you hold online intermediaries liable for the speech of third parties, i.e. you wouldn’t allow third party to comment at all–can you imagine if Bacon R. were potentially liable for all the comments here? They would never allow it. That’s not good for the internet, the economy, or free speech. Further, the govt. telling what private platforms can and cannot moderate also creates major issues w/r/t first amendment. I feel like the conservative attack on 230 is highly ironic, given how most conservatives want a limited govt. And there’s really not a balance issue in online speech with right wing websites thriving. In many ways, it’s an invented problem. CRT for online platforms.

          9. LarrytheG Avatar

            Indeed and the likes of far-right social platforms which spew conspiracy theories all over creation would be shut down.

            FOX News is claiming that they did not promote false information about Dominion Voting systems, that, instead they “interviewed” people who did.

      1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
        f/k/a_tmtfairfax

        None, that I’m aware of.

  2. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Contributions to incumbents are made largely IMO because folks including lobby and vested interests like proven winners. Y’all may recall Justice Alito shaking his head at the SOTU when President Obama criticized the Citizens United decision enhancing channels for interstate campaign financing when the stakes call for it.

    If Kiggans loses, it offers no conclusion about out of state money.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      I wrote that if she wins, “she will demonstrate that a huge money advantage is not always everything.”

      Different statement than the one with which you appear to take exception.

      1. VaNavVet Avatar

        A very big “if” to predict a Kiggans win as the new 2nd district includes the Eastern Shore, Suffolk, Franklin and Isle of Wight. Forty percent of the district is new and includes these Democratic areas. The other sixty percent represents areas that Luria has won twice in the past. Kiggans is only well known in the part of Virginia Beach that she represents in the state senate.

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          “If “ is not a prediction.

          1. VaNavVet Avatar

            So does that mean that you are withdrawing your prediction of a Kiggans win?

      2. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        I elected to offer, as you often do, my take on your statement.

    2. VaNavVet Avatar

      For the sake of our democracy, lets hope that the “election deniers” do not win in Virginia or in any other states.

  3. LarrytheG Avatar

    I have to wonder if Kiggans had a 2-1 advantage if there would still be a complaint.

    If SCOTUS says money is a Constitutional free speech, I don’t see how Federal or State laws can overcome that myself.

    But it would not be unconstitutional to require all donors to be disclosed and I think that information alone disclosed to most voters would be enough for most to decide if the money was “right” or the candidate was “right” for them.

    But it would be nice if we did not flip-flop on our positions depending on which candidate we liked or not.

    1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      What part of my story led you to believe I am selective about my position?

      I have held those views for more than 70 years.

      In that time, Virginia was a Harry Byrd Democrat state, a Southern Strategy Republican state, a moderate Republican state, a progressive Democratic state and now split down the middle trending Republican again.

      Stop, for just a minute, from being cynical on this. It doesn’t suit you or the facts. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/Elections/Contribution-Limits-to-Candidates-2019-2020.pdf?ver=2019-10-02-132802-117

    2. James C. Sherlock Avatar
      James C. Sherlock

      What part of my story led you to believe I am selective about my position?

      I have held those views for more than 70 years.

      In that time, Virginia was a Harry Byrd Democrat state, a Southern Strategy Republican state, a moderate Republican state, a progressive Democratic state and now split down the middle trending Republican again.

      Stop, for just a minute, from being cynical on this. It doesn’t suit you or the facts. https://www.ncsl.org/Portals/1/Documents/Elections/Contribution-Limits-to-Candidates-2019-2020.pdf?ver=2019-10-02-132802-117

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        You would have written the same blog if your favorites had a 2-1 fund advantage? 😉

        Call me skeptical, not cynical …

        in terms of trending GOP…..

        I think it’s more likely split between rural GOP and Urban Dem with some wiggle in the urban with some swing voters.

        I don’t see Va “trending” to a solid GOP margin… anytime soon although I do admit the crime and school issues are in play.

        We’ll see but I think it’s a squeaker in the 7th and 2nd either way.

        I note Cook is now predicting a 25 seat turn… so Dems may lose one or both seats.

        And when I see you decry the out-of-state funding when it favors the GOP, I’ll be less “cynical”. 😉

        1. James C. Sherlock Avatar
          James C. Sherlock

          Go with that, Larry.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            I always feel much better when you approve! 😉

      2. DJRippert Avatar

        You keep saying 9 states. I count 5 from the same document. What are the 9 states?

      3. James McCarthy Avatar
        James McCarthy

        70 year old opinions do not exclude selectivity. In fact, such suggests it.

  4. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    In the meantime millionaires loaning money to their own campaign creates a conduit directly into their bank account for the duration of their time in office. Right Glenn?

    1. f/k/a_tmtfairfax Avatar
      f/k/a_tmtfairfax

      Mark too!

      1. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Only since 2021 and all that can.

  5. M. Purdy Avatar

    Would this same logic apply to disagreeing with Citizens United?

      1. M. Purdy Avatar

        So Virginia conservatives support Citizens United, but dislike the rampant flow of funds into Virginia for the same reason that people oppose Citizens United?

        1. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          It’s characterized as woke conservatism similar to Alice’s experience seeing jabberwocky in reverse through the looking glass. It’s still jabberwocky.

        2. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          That about sums it up. It’s lawfare and gamesmanship.

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            but it’s standard procedure for Conservatives, no surprise!

          2. M. Purdy Avatar

            Ah yes, the old ‘free speech for me, but not for thee’ logic. Much of my alma mater’s alumni base subscribes to that logic.

          3. Nancy Naive Avatar
            Nancy Naive

            I keep learning things about the SCOTUS. Majority opinions are the law of the land. Judges can use them as reason for decisions. Minority opinions are cute and no lawyer in his right mind would cite them. But then there are Concurring opinions that are like addendums to the Majority opinion that carry the full weight of precedence. They can be cited and used in lower courts.

            Clarence Thomas has written hundreds of Concurring opinions often citing plain bat$#!t crazy reasons.

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    The argument over campaign money from out of State is as old as the question “Are we THE United States, or THESE United States?”
    I think that was answered in 1865, but there are vestiges.

  7. Ronnie Chappell Avatar
    Ronnie Chappell

    The amount of money raised by campaigns and the sources of campaign cash is not a huge concern for me as long as the sources and amounts of campaign contributions are transparent and expenditures are disclosed. The biggest problem with campaign contributions in Virginia is that candidates can convert unspent funds to personal use. It can be used to buy a house, pay off personal debt, fund a country club membership, send a kid to college. It ought to be stopped and until it is stopped, nothing else will change.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      How about entities like Donor’s Trust?

  8. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    I read the other day that Alito was bemoaning the leaked ruling put him at risk of assassination. One of the founding credos has always been “Take our rights lose your job”. Perhaps he just realized the best argument against lifetime appointments.

  9. Lefty665 Avatar

    Once again you have botched it. You start by bemoaning Virginia’s lack of restrictions on campaign contributions then segue to wailing about unequal fund raising for Congressional candidates.

    They are two very different issues. It is really very simple. Virginia in state candidates have few contribution restrictions. Federal candidates must comply with Federal contribution restrictions.

    Federal limits on individual contributions to candidates are strict. For corporations they are less strict. Contributions to PACs are relatively unconstrained and often the contributors are unidentified. Those are all more restrictive than Virginia’s complete lack of restrictions on contributions to in-state candidates.

    I agree with you that Virginia’s lack of restrictions is problematical.

    You do the argument no favors by conflating Federal and State. They are two very different systems with very different issues.

Leave a Reply