Let's Count The Ways
So far this cycle, the 4 biggest self-funders trying to buy electoral office failed. No matter the party, I think we should call be able to agree that that is a very good thing. The 4 biggest spenders from their own fortunes were Dave Trone (over $54 million) who lost the Democratic Maryland Senate primary; Vivek Ramaswamy (almost $31 million) and Doug Burgum (about $14 million) lost their presidential primary bids but both weren’t really expecting to win the presidency but were hoping to break into contention for other positions; and Matt Dolan (over $10 million) who lost the GOP Ohio Senate primary to another self-funder, Bernie Moreno ($4.5 million). These are the 20 biggest self-funders still in the running for Congress:
Eric Hovde (R-WI)- Senate- $8 million
Rick Scott (R-FL)- Senate- $8 million
Gil Cisneros (D-CA)- House- $5.5 million
Chuck Goodrich (R-IN)- House- $4.6 million
Jefferson Shreve (R-IN)- House- $4.5 million
Bernie Moreno (R-OH)- Senate- $4.5 million
Blake Masters (R-AZ)- House- $4.4 million
Kelly Daughtry (R-NC)- House- $4.3 million
Shri Thanedar (D-MI)- House- $3.3 million
Sandy Pensler (R-MI)- Senate- $3 million
Brad Wilson (R-UT)- Senate- $2.8 million
John Rust (R-IN)- Senate- $2.6 million
Jeff Gunter (R-NV)- Senate- $2.5 million
Jason Walton (R-UT)- Senate- $2.5 million
Tim Sheehy (R-MT)- Senate- $2.2 million
Dave McCormick (R-PA)- Senate- $2.1 million
Keith Gross (R-FL)- Senate- $1.9 million
David Taylor (R-OH)- House- $1.7 million
Sid Mahant (R-IN)- House- $1.7 million
Dick Brewbaker (R-AL)- House- $1.6 million
18 of the 20 are Republicans. There’s something somewhat shameful among Democrats when someone is trying to buy a congressional seat with their own wealth. It happens of course (take Dan Goldman in NY for example), but it’s a kind of black mark against them, especially when it’s unearned hereditary wealth (like Goldman’s). Among Republicans, however— perfectly normal, nothing to see here. Fred Von Canon (R-NC), Robin Ficker (R-MI), Margarita Wilkinson (R-CA), John Bradford (R-NC), Larry Kidd (R-OH), Allan Baucom (R-NC), Tom O’Hara (R-OH) and Grey Mills (R-NC) each spent over a million dollars in primaries that they lost this year. No biggie in their world. In fact, both parties— but especially the Republican Party— prefer self-funders, who tend to be conservatives (rather than either progressives or fascists).
Last week, Alex Roarty and Katherine Swartz reported that it’s no accident that the GOP has so many self-funding Senate candidates. “In a calculated risk,” they wrote, “Republican officials and allies of Trump have rallied behind Senate candidates who… have never held elected office but can help fund a campaign through their own personal wealth. In addition to Sheehy, who received a key endorsement from Trump that helped clear his path to the nomination, national Republicans backed Senate candidates like Dave McCormick in Pennsylvania and Eric Hovde in Wisconsin, both of whom are rich and politically inexperienced. A fourth wealthy Republican candidate, Bernie Moreno in Ohio, had more competition in his primary but ultimately won the Senate nomination thanks to a Trump endorsement.”
The GOP’s— and to some extent the Democrats’— strategy of backing self-funders reflects a broader issue: the growing influence of money in politics, which undermines the democratic process. When candidates can buy their way into office, it exacerbates inequality and reinforces a plutocracy, where the wealthy have disproportionate power and influence.
The Republicans' reliance on wealthy candidates suggests a party increasingly out of touch with ordinary voters. As their small-dollar donor base shrinks, they turn to the ultra-wealthy to fund their campaigns, distancing themselves further from the working and middle classes and their interests. This dynamic perpetuates policies that favor the rich, deepening economic inequality.
This cycle, Democrats have a unique opportunity to contrast their values with the GOP's reliance on wealth. By championing campaign finance reform and supporting candidates who rely on grassroots funding, Democrats can position themselves as the party of the people.
The issue of self-funding in politics is a threat to democracy itself. I hope we’ve all learned by now that a political system where the wealthy can buy their way into power to push their conservative, self-dealing agendas, erodes public trust and undermines the principle of equal representation. To counter this, it’s crucial to advocate for comprehensive campaign finance reform, including measures to limit the influence of money in politics and promote transparency and accountability. By emphasizing— even lionizing— the importance of grassroots funding and small-dollar donations, progressives can build a more inclusive and representative political system. This approach not only aligns with progressive values but also resonates with voters who are disillusioned with a political system dominated by the wealthy elite. Let me put in a plug here for the Blue America Flip Congress page, where many of the candidates are struggling against opponents swimming in big money, from personal wealth, SuperPACs, and shady, hidden sources.
“We’ve focused on recruiting candidates who are really strong fundraisers or who are capable of making a personal investment in their campaign to try and close the money gap,” said one GOP aide involved in Senate races, who noted that the party’s candidates in Senate elections have been heavily outspent in recent years.
Republicans maintain that their candidates’ wealth could help free up money elsewhere on the 2024 Senate map, letting the party push deeper into Democratic territory and maximize its gains. But such an expansion depends on candidates like Sheehy holding up under pressure in their own critical races against experienced incumbent Democrats with massive fundraising hauls of their own.
Already, Democrats have aggressively questioned the Republicans’ backgrounds and biographies, trying to raise doubts about their authenticity as political candidates. Last week, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee issued a memo saying the GOP had a “candidate quality problem” with its nominees.
“There’s no question Republicans think they can buy elections— that’s what they try to do,” DSCC Chair Gary Peters told NOTUS. “But we’ve seen time and time again that self-funded candidates that are not really strongly grounded in the state don’t do very well in the polls.”
…The money could help. Hovde faces no serious [primary] competition and has so far loaned his campaign $8 million. Sheehy has loaned $2 million of his own money to his campaign, plus an additional $150,000 contribution. In Pennsylvania, McCormick has given his campaign nearly $2 million in loans so far this cycle; in 2022, he contributed more than $14 million to a failed primary bid.
It’s not a coincidence that the National Republican Senatorial Committee has anointed so many self-investors this cycle. It’s an intentional strategy by the NRSC to do everything differently than they did in 2022 by backing financially strong candidates early and eliminating the possibility of opposition.
In 2022, Blake Masters and Mehmet Oz won their Republican primaries in Arizona and Pennsylvania, respectively, but were left bruised financially and unpopular in the polls. Both were significantly outraised in the last months of the general election by their Democratic opponents, and in the end, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell pulled his PAC’s spending out of Arizona altogether.
And with fundraising only becoming more difficult for national committees, there’s a greater incentive to bolster self-funders.
One senior GOP strategist said the party’s shrinking small-dollar base has left it scrambling to make up the funding gap elsewhere. Even the pool of big-dollar donors seems to shrink cycle after cycle, the source added, noting that most of those contributors are older and sometimes no longer around to donate.
“You’re not going to make it up from there, so where are you going to do it?” said the senior GOP strategist, who requested anonymity to speak candidly. “And that leaves you with people who have their own funds.”
Digital GOP strategist Eric Wilson said that small-dollar fundraising is a greater challenge than in previous years, which can have broad consequences for a campaign in dire need of cash. Candidates who can donate to their own campaigns, even just to help them get an early fundraising boost, can put themselves in a much better position, he said.
“When you’re less constrained by money, you are able to make decisions more clearly,” Wilson said. “And invest wisely and at the appropriate time. So it’s a huge advantage strategically.”
…Democrats often look for ways to exploit a new candidate’s record, especially if they come from a politically unpopular business like a hedge fund. And new candidates aren’t always ready for that level of scrutiny— or ready to handle the daily rigor of the campaign trail and everything that comes with it.
“People that come out of business, particularly, look at politics as, ‘Well, I succeeded in business, so I can do this,’” said [GOP strategist Rob] Stutzman. “Inevitably, deep into a campaign, they realize it’s different than business, with its own specific set of challenges, and they need to adapt.”
Senate Majority PAC, a well-funded super PAC aligned with the Democratic Party, has run a pair of ads criticizing Hovde as a “California banker.” And last year, it started running ads that targeted Sheehy’s business record, citing business it said he conducted in an international tax haven like the Cayman Islands.
Some Republicans in Montana even said they worried Sheehy’s inexperience as a candidate could hinder him during the general election.
Republican Tammi Fisher, the former mayor of Kalispell and now political podcast host, said that Sheehy’s greatest weaknesses are authenticity and his lack of polish as a first-time candidate. Sheehy and Tester will have their debate this Sunday, and Fisher fears it won’t go well for Sheehy because he hasn’t had the practice of a primary debate under his belt.
“Where Sheehy has struggled has been where there’s an audience and when he’s been put under the hot lights, so I think it was a mistake to not put somebody up against him,” she said.
Fisher said it’s clear Sheehy was picked by the NRSC over other Republicans in Montana with more name recognition because of his ability to fund his own campaign. But she said Sheehy has a long way to go to make up for his shortcomings, particularly against a Democrat as well regarded in the state as Tester.
“Tester is going to have a machine behind him and where money will literally fall off trees in support of him,” she said. “Sheehy has the personal wealth to get it across the finish line, but he’s going to be bleeding money in order to compete.”
Let me just say one more thing here— whether it's self-funders or dark money, the undue influence of wealth in politics is a pervasive problem that needs urgent constitutional addressing. Comprehensive campaign finance reform is essential to ensure that our political system starts returning to fairness, transparency and accountability. It has always been a priority for Blue America and DWT to advocate for reforms that limit the influence of money in politics and promote grassroots funding, as a way of working towards a more democratic and equitable political system that aspires to represent the interests of working families. Because, let’s face it, as we’ve seen this cycle, there’s plenty of special interest evil beyond just individual self-funders.
The biggest sources of sewer money this cycle is SuperPACs funded by the crypto-criminals and by the pro-genocide lobby. Dark money, which allows donors to remain anonymous, undermines transparency and accountability in our political system. Powerful interests buying elections, especially without disclosing their identities, creates a breeding ground for runaway corruption in Congress. The influx of crypto-cash into politics is a ten-alarm fire, particularly given the lack of regulation and oversight in the crypto industry. Their funds have been used to buy desperate, ethics-free candidates who push for favorable legislation, clearly at the expense of consumer protection and financial stability. Similarly, AIPAC-aligned sources have poured money into campaigns to eviscerate the ranks of progressives to fill Congress with members who will look in the other direction as Israel commits genocide against the Palestinian people. To put it mildly, this kind of spending skews policy decisions in ways that do not reflect the will of the majority of Americans.
Because of AIPAC and other pro-genocide SuperPACs, many observers think Hill Harper doesn't have a real chance, even though he's a better candidate and more aligned with the interests of the vast majority of Michigan Democrats.