Incumbents’ Money Advantage Decisive : Politics: Election results indicate that challengers have little chance against well-financed officeholders.

Abortion. Taxes. The budget. All were important in determining the outcome of the 1990 elections but perhaps the single most decisive factor in many campaigns was something the candidates never mentioned: How much money they had to spend.

With a few notable exceptions, the results of Tuesday’s election reinforced the basic tenet of American politics that well-financed incumbents are almost impossible to beat.

Not even the apparent wave of anti-incumbent sentiment that engulfed the nation during the recent battle over the budget was sufficient to overcome the financial advantage of most incumbents.

“The big story of this election was that incumbents were insulated by money, in spite of the incredible frustration that many voters felt,” said Ellen Miller, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a think tank that specializes in studying campaign financing.

The disparity in spending between incumbents and challengers was worse this year than in any recent election, said Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, a group that advocates campaign finance reform.

“You’ve clearly got a rigged political system,” he added.

According to Federal Election Commission records on campaign spending through Oct. 17, congressional incumbents spent $214.8 million in advance of the 1990 elections--nearly four times more than the $60 million available to challengers in those same races.

Subsequently, about 96% of House incumbents were reelected. All but one incumbent senator won--the highest return rate in the Senate since 1856.

“When incumbents in the Senate are able to outspend their opponents by three-to-one and House incumbents enjoy a nine-to-one money advantage over challengers, there is little reason to expect much turnover in Congress,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Ralph Nadar’s Public Citizen, another advocate for campaign finance reform.

“As has been the case in most recent elections, money talked and challengers walked.”

Nowhere was the advantage of money more apparent than in races where incumbents such as Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) and Reps. Denny Smith (R-Ore.), Craig T. James (R-Fla.) and Frank Annunzio (D-Ill.) were targeted for defeat by the opposing party. A surprisingly large number of these targeted incumbents were able to withstand strong challenges with the help of a substantial cash advantage.

There were some exceptions to this rule of financial dominance, of course.

Most notable was the victory of Democrat Paul Wellstone, who spent only $781,000 against one of the Senate’s most skillful fund-raisers, Sen. Rudy Boschwitz (R-Minn.). Boschwitz spent almost $6.3 million.

In addition, Republican Christine Todd Whitman, with expenditures of $465,000, nearly defeated Sen. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), who spent $10.5 million.

Political scientist Norman Ornstein said that the Boschwitz and Bradley races prove that reformers such as Miller, Wertheimer and Claybrook sometimes overstate the role that money plays in guaranteeing the reelection of incumbents.

“It is a big thing, but it is not everything,” he said. “It’s not as if you’ve got an electorate that is a bunch of Stepford Wives who are willing to reelect every incumbent.”

Nevertheless, the reformers believe that Boschwitz and Bradley encountered trouble at the polls in part because their opponents made an issue of their enormous campaign war chests. Wellstone gained attention by joking about his lack of funds; Whitman publicly challenged Bradley to adhere to a $3-million spending limit, but the incumbent refused.

“Wellstone was able to hang the money issue around Boschwitz’s neck like a millstone,” Miller said. “In Boschwitz’s case it became an embarrassment of riches.”

In Florida, likewise, Gov.-elect Lawton Chiles, who defeated incumbent Bob Martinez, capitalized upon voter frustration with big-money candidates by refusing to accept contributions in excess of $100.

Challengers in the most hotly contested Senate races were woefully underfunded, according to FEC records of expenditures prior to Oct. 17.

Sen. Paul Simon spent about $8 million, or twice as much as his opponent, Rep. Lynn Martin (R-Ill.); Sen.-elect Hank Brown (R-Colo.) spent $3.1 million, or almost three times as much as his opponent, Josie Heath; Helms’ $15-million expenditure was more than three times the money spent by his opponent, Harvey Gantt.

In House races where targeted incumbents won despite expectations that they would lose, the incumbent consistently had a spending advantage. Annunzio spent $686,670 through Oct. 17, compared to $246,600 spent by his opponent, Walter W. Dudycz.

James spent $787,650, compared to $519,000 spent by his opponent, Reid Hughes. And Smith spent $696,638, compared to $560,600 by his opponent.

Money appears to have been what saved Rep. Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) against a tough challenge by Democrat David Worley. Gingrich spent $1 million; Worley spent $267,000, and some experts suggested that the challenger could have won with more money.

Even incumbents themselves acknowledge that their biggest advantage is often money.

“If a guy has a $300,000 cannon to aim at his district, that helps a lot,” said Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Highland). “It’s a horrid difficulty for non-incumbents trying to make a crack in this system.”

In some rare cases, a challenger actually spent more money than the incumbent. In Rhode Island, for example, Republican Gov. Edward DiPrete was defeated by Democrat Bruce Sundlun, who outspent him, two to one.

But just as money does not necessarily guarantee victory for an incumbent, it cannot save an otherwise weak challenger. Case in point: Jim Salomon spent $297,100 to challenge Rep. Anthony C. Beilenson (D-Los Angeles). Beilenson spent only $80,300 and won.