Campaign Finance Investigation.

The FEC is the primary source for such materials as it is the governing body for all electoral fundraising and expenditures. The following sample data was taken from eight different states over the course of two Congressional House election cycles (1996 and 1998).

Sample Data of Financial Activity in House Campaigns 1995-1996

Sample Data of Financial Activity in House Campaigns 1997-1998

Simply through examining the above table of values it is clear that the sheer majority of House candidates that spent more money on their campaigns ultimately won the office they sought.

The above graph clearly illustrates the disparity between money spent in campaigning in relation to a victorious outcome. Within the 1996 House elections, typically those who spent more stood a better chance at earning a victory with victors spending an average of $305,676 (over 169%) more than the losing opponent.

In 1998, the gap between money spent by winners’ vs. losers was even greater with the victors spending an average of $564,157 (254%) more than the losers.

Explanation of Plots:

The preceding Box and Whisker plots again illustrate the immense difference between total amounts of money spent by Winners in contrast to Losers in the two sample House election years (1996 and 1998).

In plot one regarding the 1996 campaigns, the mammoth difference between the campaign money spent by both winners and losers is made quite clear. While the majority of money spent by losing campaigns was between $55,240 and $804,886, the majority of money spent by winning campaigns fell between $577,706 and $935,426. Obviously the increased amount of spending within this range of values for the winners yielded more successful results for them whereas the losers, who spent less, subsequently did not win their desired office.

The importance of increased spending in campaigns is made perhaps more evident by the second set of data regarding the 1998 House elections. Here, the majority of money spent on campaigns by losers was between $31,151 and $672,396 while the majority of money spent in winning campaigns fell between $505,944 and $ 1, 256,169; a staggering difference.

Conclusion:

Within the scope of this data and it’s presentation, its is clear that the more money one spends on his campaign, the more likely it is he will win. However several factors must be taken into account here. The election data collected is only a sample from the total number of House elections from 1996 and 1998 and therefore has a severe influence on the results of this study. Moreover, one must take into account that the fiscal statistics presented are not the only factors for campaign success. Variables such as the candidate’s personality, background, political affiliation and personal views and goals are taken into account by the voters and are influences on their decision making. Within statistical or any mathematical investigation there are bound to be various weaknesses and deficiencies by which the investigator would be remiss in not addressing; these limitations aside, its clear in regard to the numbers afore presented, that the more money an individual spends on his campaign, the more likely he his to win his election.