Analysis: Buying an election

BY Steve Schifferes BBC News Online

The US electoral process is dominated by money to a far greater extent than other major democracies.

Money is needed to buy advertising time and the services of pollsters and consultants who increasingly shape the electoral battle.

With few restrictions on political contributions, rich individuals and companies have been able to wield enormous power - usually to the benefit of incumbents.

Sitting senators and congressmen have become increasingly hard to unseat because they are usually able to outspend their opponents, raising money from rich patrons and companies who hope to gain influence in the Congress.

Rich individuals

And the lack of strong ideological divisions between the parties means that the rich have donated freely to both Republicans and Democrats - with the energy sector and manufacturing broadly favouring the Republicans, while Wall Street, the entertainment industry, and lawyers broadly back the Democrats.

The most extreme example of the importance of money is the small number of rich individuals who have financed their own political campaigns.

For example, the junior New Jersey senator John Corzine, who retired as head of investment bank Goldman Sachs with a $300m windfall, and spent $63m of his own money winning his seat for the Democrats in 2000.

And Democrat Tony Sanchez is expected to beat that record in his bid to become Governor of Texas. Despite spending $75m, it looks like he might lose - partly because his Democratic opponent in the primary, whom he outspent 10 to one, has endorsed his Republican rival.

The rich's role in politics is not new. But the sums involved in running a major political campaign, especially in a big state like New York, California, or Texas, are so huge that fundraising is often the key to success.

Now this is all set to change - supposedly.

The campaign finance reform bill passed by this Congress - against its own impulses - was pushed by maverick Senator John McCain, President Bush's main opponent in the Republican primaries.

Spending frenzy

It aims to limit the so-called "soft money" that is spent on negative campaigning - a glaring loophole in the weak regulation of election spending.

But ironically, the provisions of the bill do not come in force until after the 2002 mid-term elections - and this has led to a frenzy of spending by both political parties in order to use up their existing stock of campaign contributions.

As usual, the Republicans have outspent the Democrats by an estimated $180m to $120m of soft money.

Governor spending

NY incumbent Republican, Pataki: $40m

Challenger, McCall: $12m

California Democrat incumbent, Davis: $60m

Challenger, Simon: $16m (est)
(Source: press reports

But even these huge sums are just estimates of the spending so far, with probably $500m spent in total, compared to the $1bn spent during the 2002 presidential election.

Thirty years ago, spending by parties was measured in a few millions, as party organisations, not paid consultants, got people out to vote.

But now consultants decide how to mobilise voters through polls and focus groups, target advertising markets, and then find methods such as using commercial call centres to persuade people into the polling booths.

Saturation point

It is a far cry from the way elections used to be run, and there is evidence that the voters are getting fed up with it.

Because there are now so few key marginal seats among the House of Representatives, small districts are being swamped with cash and political advertising.

And small states like Iowa - where Democratic Tom Harkin is in a tight race - have already reached saturation point. The Republicans and Democrats between them have already bought up nearly all available television advertising time in the week before the election, and are pouring funds into the campaign in the hope of gaining control of the Senate.

Voters may be getting fed up with the tradition of negative campaigning as well, with many adverts designed to criticise their opponent rather than explain their own positions or achievements.

Republican Doug Forrester campaigned against a rival who has now been switched

This backfired in New Jersey for the Republican Doug Forrester, who had run his campaign criticising corruption. He was left high and dry when the rival Democratic Senator Robert Torricelli resigned.

Mr Torricelli denied any illegality but had been criticised by the Senate ethics committee. He was replaced by a scandal-free former senator, Frank Lautenberg though Republicans have vowed to fight the move.

Money and politics, however, is probably here to stay for some time to come.

It is hard to believe that the campaign reform act will succeed totally in limiting contributions by the rich.

Deadlock of democracy

It is already the subject of a series of fierce court challenges by groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Christian Coalition, on the grounds it limits free speech.

But the influence of money is corrosive on politics.

It makes the voters cynical about the motives of their politicians and less likely to vote.

And it makes the politicians more beholden to the "special interests" - the lobby groups that have contributed heavily to their campaigns - than is healthy for the policy process.

The lobbyists are particularly able to influence legislation as it goes through the committee stage, ensuring their own corporate interests are protected.

In the Enron scandal, for example, it emerged that the company had given contributions right across the political spectrum.

This has made it harder for either party to get any political traction out of the corporate scandals of 2002.

And unless the funding of political parties can be sorted out, the ability to regulate the business sector - vital to restoring confidence in the American economy - will be that more difficult.