Article published Sunday, May 20, 2007, at Fox News.

Billion-Dollar Bloomberg Run for White House Exposes Flaws in Campaign Finance Laws

By John R. Lott, Jr.

Campaign finance regulations have wrecked havoc on the American election system, entrenching incumbents and reducing voter turnout. But the worst may be yet to come in 2008. If news reports last week are correct, New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg is planning on spending $1 billion to win the presidency. Vastly outspending anything possible by Republican and Democratic nominees, even if they forego public financing.

Campaign finance laws have resulted in lots of millionaires getting elected to office. Wealthy individuals, who can only give $2,000 to someone else who is running for office, face no donation limits to their own campaign.

For example, Steve Forbes wanted to donate to Jack Kemp's presidential campaign and if Forbes could have donated what he wanted, Kemp may have run for president. But he couldnít, so he ran himself.

However that is hardly unique. Jon Corzine spent $60 million dollars of his own money running for the Senate in 2002. And for House and Senate races generally, 29 candidates in 2002 and 23 candidates in 2004 spent more than a million dollars of their own money on their campaigns.

While fewer than one percent of Americans earned over a million dollars a year, at least 123 out of 435 members of congress earned that much.

There is no problem per se with wealthy people running for office if that is what the voters want, and it hardly guarantees election. The problem is that the rules tilt the playing field and make it very difficult for others to run against them.

Raising a large number of small donations is difficult. Wealthy candidates as well as incumbents are at an advantage here. Wealthy candidates, who are financing their own campaigns, can avoid these costs completely. Incumbents have years to put together long mailing lists and make contacts. The long start required for fundraising means that even if a candidate falters, unless it completely collapses, it is virtually impossible for other candidates to enter in at the last moment.

Wealthy candidates avoid spending time asking already loyal supporters for small amounts of money. They can avoid the massive cost of mailings to raise money from the already converted and concentrate on mailings to those who havenít made up their minds yet. The candidates themselves can spend their time talking to undecided voters.

But what about the frequent argument that money buys votes? There is little support for it. Politicians are not voting the way they do because donors are giving them money, but donors are giving to candidates who value the same things that they do.

Fortunately, there is a simple test to disentangle these two possibilities. If donors are bribing politicians to vote differently than they otherwise would have voted, politicians should shift at least somewhat away from the voting interests of their donors when they retire and no longer have to worry about losing these donations. On the other hand, if donors support politicians based upon the politiciansí genuine beliefs, retiring politicians have no reason to change how they vote. In fact, retiring politicians do not change how they vote. Politicians vote the same way over they careers, even before they start getting donations from particular interest groups.

The ultimate irony is that in trying to get money out of politics, reformers have made it easier for those with money to get in. For someone like Bloomberg with a billion dollars to spend, that regulatory advantage could be massive, swamping anything that it is possible for competitors to raise.

*John Lott is the author of the forthcoming book, Freedomnomics and and will soon be a Senior Research Scientist at the University of Maryland.

Home (description of book, downloadable data sets, and discussions of previous controversies)

Academic papers:

Social Science Research Network

Book Reviews:

For a list of book reviews on The Bias Against Guns, click here.

List of my Op-eds

Posts by topic

Appalachian law school attack

Baghdad murder rate

Arming Pilots

Fraudulent website pretending to be run by me

The Merced Pitchfork Killings and Vin Suprynowicz's quote

Ayres and Donohue

Stanford Law Review

Mother Jones article


Craig Newmark

Eric Rasmusen

William Sjostrom

Dr. T's

Interview with National Review Online

Lyonette Louis-Jacques's page on Firearms Regulation Worldwide

The End of Myth: An Interview with Dr. John Lott

Cold Comfort, Economist John Lott discusses the benefits of guns--and the hazards of pointing them out.

An interview with John R. Lott, Jr. author of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws

Some data not found at

Updated Media Analysis of Appalachian Law School Attack

Since the first news search was done additional news stories have been added to Nexis:

There are thus now 218 unique stories, and a total of 294 stories counting duplicates (the stories in yellow were duplicates): Excel file for general overview and specific stories. Explicit mentions of defensive gun use increase from 2 to 3 now.

Journal of Legal Studies paper on spoiled ballots during the 2000 Presidential Election

Data set from USA Today, STATA 7.0 data set

"Do" File for some of the basic regressions from the paper