Transcript
TOM MANN: It seems to me as you listen to David and Tony, it ought to be clear that money is both a cause, a factor, in determining the outcome of elections, but it's also an effect of it, that is, the expectation, the presumption of a party doing well, leaves it to raise more money, which then creates a very, for that party, satisfactory dynamic in which the anticipation of success leads to more money, which helps further produce that success. We actually saw that operating in 2004 where it was more a matter of sort of a high stakes, very close election. In 2006, we see it working clearly to the advantage of the Democratic party.
Tony has documented how the Democratic party, relative to the Republicans, has made up ground this time. David, in aggregate figures, has noted how Democratic candidates have done well. If you then go to potentially competitive races, you will find that Democratic challengers are financially competitive in substantially a larger number of races than they have been before.
The reality is that this has all the makings of a national tide election, a strongly negative referendum on the party of government. We don't have these very often — on average, once a decade — but when that tide rolls, it leaves an impact. It has an impact indirectly on the recruitment of candidates, the raising of money, the energy and interest of activists and party loyalists among voters, and has a direct impact, as well, as people change their mind in response to these national conditions.
The last five elections to the House together constitute the most uncompetitive period of congressional elections in American history. It has been a remarkable period, but that new pattern of uncompetitiveness has not yet been contested by a strong national tide. The last one was in 1994, which helped put that system in place.
Every indication is that that new structure will be tested hard by the national tides, operating both directly and indirectly. It's showing up in the finance figures. As both Tony and David have stressed, party independent spending has become a critical factor.
. . .while in general it's true that the candidate who spends the most money wins, in a national tide election you always have a substantial number of candidates who spend less than opponents, who win, who are taking advantage of the broader national conditions, and I guarantee you there will be such candidates this time. Whether there will be 10 or 20 in the House, I don't know, but it's very likely to happen. I think the evidence here before us today presented in the book and by our colleagues suggests that indeed the law, the most recent law that was past, modest in its ambitions, has achieved its objectives. The flexibility remains in the system for the parties to be major players, and national tides are likely to still leave a significant and political consequential mark on our national politics.
View Full Transcript »