3 May 2016

Gianforte’s $272k self-funding may indicate weakness or laziness

Republican gubernatorial hopeful Greg Gianforte is raising money the easy way: he’s asking himself for it, and in response writing checks for $100,000 to his campaign. Thus far, he’s contributed over a quarter-million dollars to his campaign.

He can afford it. He’s rich. That scares the bejesus out of Montana’s Democrats, who fear he’ll try to buy the election.

But, is he writing big checks to his campaign because he’s too lazy to ask Republicans for money? Because he’s asking but not receiving all that much? Both?

Writing a $100k check to his campaign takes less time, and has less fundraising overhead, than raising that amount through 10,000 ten-dollar contributions. But it doesn’t generate the enthusiasm and commitment among the voters as their own small investment in the campaign generates. A lack of grassroots enthusiasm can translate into a lackluster get out the vote effort during election month.

A quarter of a million dollars is not chicken feed, especially in million-person Montana, one of the nation’s least populous states. But on a per capita basis, it’s an order of magnitude less than what Meg Whitman spent losing to Jerry Brown in the 2010 election for governor in 38-million-person California.

Whitman spent $144 million of her own money that year, or $3.8 per Californian. Correcting that for inflation (I used the FRED GDP deflator) yields $4.1 per Californian in today’s dollars. Call it four bucks a resident. Gianforte’s at 27 cents per Montanan, so he has a way to go to match Meg’s self-funding.

It’s harder than some think for rich people to self-fund winning campaigns for high office. Sometimes they find the voters aren’t for sale.