US midterm elections: American politics is all about the money – but being a rich candidate doesn't always help

Titans of business and billionaires may be able to self-finance, but they rarely make it into public office

The afternoon sun hits the U.S. Capitol on the eve of the nation's mid-term elections, November 3, 2014 in Washington, DC. On November 4, Americans will head to the polls to cast their vote in the mid-term elections with the control of the U.S. Senate in (Mark Wilson | Getty Images)

Money has become an ongoing and heated topic in American elections.

In 2010, the Supreme Court cancelled any limits on the amount of cash corporations, unions and rich individuals could spend during elections.

SuperPACs, once a term that drew befuddlement, is now part of the mainstream political lexicon, describing committees that can spend as much as they want on a campaign just so long as they don’t work directly with the candidate.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics (CRP), both Barack Obama and Mitt Romney's campaigns in 2012 had an overall spend of over $1 billion. CRP currently predicts that this 2014 election cycle – which comes to a head today – will cost at least £3.67 billion.

However, while money is now flowing from many more outside sources and small-scale contributions are diminishing, cash is never a guarantee for success – and more importantly, the richness of an individual candidate and how much of their cash they flaunt can never be a sure fire way to propel someone into office.

Take Linda McMahon, who built up the World Wrestling Entertainment empire along with her husband, Vince. CRP figures show that in 2012 McMahon spent nearly $50 million of her own money on her campaign for a Senate seat in Connecticut. She lost - the second time she had failed after attempting to win the same seat in 2010, when she also spent $50m of her own money on her campaign. Both times she lost the popular vote 55% to 43%.

Also in 2010, two successful businesswomen, Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman, also attempted to use their financial clout and business acumen to gain elected office in the US. Both failed.

David Dewhurst spent $19.6 million trying to be the Republican nominee for one of Texas' Senate seats in 2012, yet failed against Ted Cruz, an insurgent backed by the Tea Party. Indeed, the top ten millionaire candidates in the 2012 electoral cycle (those who spent most of their own money trying to get elected) all failed in their attempts to hold public office.

In this year's various Senate races, Texan Democrat David Alameel has spent the most of his own dosh, having forked out $5.6 million, yet is trailing in the polls.

The news is slightly better for Bruce Rauner, the Republican nominee for Governor of Illinois. Rauner, a former businessman with numerous high-end properties across the US, who is neck-and-neck with the Democrat Governor Pat Quinn.

So where does the former business mogul or billionaire/millionaire candidate sit when it comes to electoral success in American politics? Clearly, a record of successful financial accumulation does not endear an individual to the electorate, even when times are tough and people are supposedly looking for more efficient and frugal governments.

Pete Quist, research director at the National Institute on Money in State Politics, said, "Generally speaking, candidates who predominantly self-finance tend to have a poor record at the ballot box even if they lead the fundraising total in the race. If a candidate can get someone to give them even $5 that creates a commitment from that person and that person is likely to vote, and to vote for that candidate, whereas self-funding does not generate that kind of grassroots support."

A report by the National Institute on Money in State Politics in 2010 noted that in previous nine years, only 11% of self-financed candidates won their races.

Dave Levinthal, a senior political reporter at the Center for Public Integrity, said that self-funding candidates fail because they "attempt to use their overwhelming wealth as a replacement for retail politicking and building a donor network.

"Wealthy business people, while well-known within business circles, often aren't terribly well-known to the average voter. They don’t have much in the way of political records to run on, even if it’s from a term on a city council, or county commission, or state legislature."

Of course, the realities on the ground and the mood of the voters counts for far more than how cash someone has to pay for TV ads. Furthermore, most businesspeople have to enter a political race where they are up against an incumbent and that is always a struggle. "The vast majority of incumbents win re-election at the federal level," Levinthal explained. "They have the advantage of familiarity, of a standing political organization and the bully pulpit that comes with being an elected official. Often times, these are obstacles that an unelected challenger can't overcome."

Still, Levinthal emphasised there are some notable exceptions to the rule - just look at Michael Bloomberg's three terms as Mayor of New York.

Fred Davis, the founder of the agency Strategic Perception and known for his infamous Republican attack ads, argued that Bruce Rauner in Illinois and one of his clients, David Perdue in Georgia, could both win on November 4 and show that sometimes rich business people can win higher office. Of course, they helped by the mood of the moment - Barack Obama's unpopularity and the expectation of a new Republican wave. Still, voter dissatisfaction with Obama in 2010 did not help the likes of McMahon, Fiorina and Whitman.

CRP’s Andrew Mayersohn wrote that in the final days of the midterms, the campaigns become more about "person-to-person contact with voters… The ground game is the last refuge of every campaign trailing in the polls, since a stellar get-out-the-vote operation can close a deficit in a hurry." He notes that in the battle between Perdue and Michelle Nunn in Georgia, while Perdue has injected a lot of his own cash, Nunn has been a more prolific fundraiser and interestingly, she has far outspent him on campaign personnel, i.e. people on the ground.

When asked for his final thoughts on the connection between billionaires, business people and US politics, Davis said, "These people aren't used to the scrutiny of politics, the sleaze factor of politics. Most are shocked that the other side simply lies about them.

"The one's I know best - Rauner, Fiorina and Perdue - all got into it for the right reasons. All would be incredible public servants, but the miseries of the electoral process are often just more than they understood going in.

"Politics is a brutal sport."