Outspent Senate Candidates Still Winners

Although there is a common political assumption that campaign dollars are almost as good as votes, all but one of the nine Democrats who captured Republican-held U.S. Senate seats Tuesday raised substantially less campaign money than their opponents, a study by The Times shows.

Democratic officials said this shows that candidates can be outspent and still be competitive, provided that they have enough cash to afford a basic level of television advertising and direct mail.

“We tell our Democratic candidates that, if they can’t match the Republicans on television in the spring, summer and early fall, they should at least save enough to purchase equal time in the closing weeks of the campaign,” Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said. And that is generally what they did, he added.

House Follows Pattern

A pattern similar to the one in the Senate race developed in House races as well. In close races in which there was no incumbent seeking reelection, the candidate who raised less money emerged victorious as often as the one who was better financed.

Nevertheless, the study found that the ability to pull in big bucks is part of the general advantage of the incumbent and apparently does count for something: Of the 21 Senate incumbents who won reelection, only Sen. Alan Cranston (D-Calif.) did it with less cash than his challenger, according to finance reports filed through Oct. 15.

Senate Democratic candidates who overcame the biggest funding disadvantages were Kent Conrad in North Dakota, Richard C. Shelby in Alabama, Wyche Fowler Jr. in Georgia, Brock Adams in Washington and Terry Sanford in North Carolina.

Less Reliance on PACs

Conrad raised $605,000, compared with the $1,695,000 collected by Sen. Mark Andrews (R-N.D.). One major reason for the gap was Andrews’ heavy reliance on contributions from the political action committees of corporations, trade associations and other special interests. Andrews received 51% of his funds from PACs, Conrad 38%.

Shelby, Fowler and Adams were outgunned 2 to 1 in fund raising by, respectively, Sen. Jeremiah Denton (R-Ala.), Sen. Mack Mattingly (R-Ga.) and Sen. Slade Gorton (R-Washington). Sanford’s opponent, Sen. James T. Broyhill (R-N.C.), held a 4-3 cash edge.

In Florida, winning Democratic challenger Bob Graham raised about $400,000 less than Republican Sen. Paula Hawkins. In South Dakota, victorious Democrat Thomas A. Daschle collected about $200,000 less than GOP Sen. James Abdnor. And in Nevada, Democrat Harry Reid, who seized the seat vacated by retiring Republican Sen. Paul Laxalt, raised about $400,000 less than his GOP opponent, Jim Santini.

Well-Financed Democrat

Barbara A. Mikulski of Maryland was the only Democrat to build up a cash advantage while taking a Republican Senate seat. She raised $1.7 million to $1.3 million for Republican Linda Chavez in the battle for the job being given up by Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R-Md.).

In his narrow Senate victory, California’s Cranston had the experience--unprecedented for him--of facing a challenger who possessed a bigger war chest. Two weeks before the election, Republican Rep. Ed Zschau had raised $9.1 million to Cranston’s $8.8 million.

There were 43 open seats up for grabs in the House this year, and in 33 of the contests the winners raised more money than the losers. However, the figure is misleading because many of the races took place in strong Democratic or Republican strongholds and were one-sided.

Key to Victory

In 17 open-seat clashes where the voting was closely divided, nine of the winners raised less campaign money than the losers. One of their keys to victory was that each of the four Republicans and five Democrats had raised considerable sums even if those sums were, in most cases, substantially less than their opponents’.

The same was true of the eight House challengers who defeated incumbents despite having less money.