FASCINATING – AT 9:03 A.M. ET:  We make an assumption that money buys votes, and that big money buys many votes.  But there are exceptions.  Nelson Rockefeller wanted very much to be president, but all his money couldn't buy the office.  Same with Ted Kennedy. 

Now, a new study confirms direct observation – that money isn't always a guarantee of success in elections.  From the Washington Times:

...recent elections show that having big money is no clear path to electoral success, and wealthy self-funded candidates such as...California Senate hopeful Carly Fiorina and California gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman are finding so far that deep pockets can't even guarantee them a lead in the polls.

The winning candidate in more than 90 percent of the 2008 House and Senate races was also the candidate who spent the most money. However, the record for self-funded millionaires and billionaires is far less impressive, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Of the 51 self-funded millionaires the Washington-based group counted in 2008 races, 37 either lost or quit their races before Election Day. And roughly 41 percent of them never got past the primaries, including California developer and former Republican congressman Doug Ose, who spent $4.1 million in a failed - and expensive - comeback effort.

And...

The template for buying a race may have been set by Democrat Jon Corzine, who pumped a record-shattering $62 million of the fortune he made at Goldman Sachs into his winning Senate race in 2000, and tapped his bank account again to win the New Jersey governorship six years later. Media magnate Michael R. Bloomberg raised the bar by dropping $109 million for his re-election campaign as New York City mayor in 2009.

But the record Mr. Corzine broke was held by California multimillionaire Michael Huffington, who lost his 1994 Senate race to Democrat Dianne Feinstein. And Mr. Bloomberg limped to an unimpressive four-point win against a hopelessly outspent opponent in his latest race. Massive fortunes also did not translate into Election Day victory for presidential hopefuls such as Ross Perot and Steve Forbes.

COMMENT:  Some cautionary notes:  While it's gratifying that voters can look past the money machine, there's no doubt that personal money makes it easier for some people to gain access to the system, and get themselves on the ballot in the first place.  It also distorts the concept of representation.  The U.S. Senate is, on average, far wealthier than its constituents. 

We still have not solved the issue of money in politics:  How do you permit those of means to enter the system, and use their resources to advance their causes, while at the same time providing fairness and access to others?  Neither hard liberals or hard conservatives have provided much in the way of useful answers.

May 14, 2010