Self-Financed Campaigns Rarely Win

[rpannier]

The Efficacy of Self-Funding a Political Campaign
by Anne Bauer, June 22, 2010

Whitman and Fiorina take note: while candidates with big war chests hold a significant advantage over their opponents, the advantage is diffused when most of the money comes from a candidate's own pockets. The traditional advantages of being the top fundraiser in a race, or being an incumbent, don't confer the same level of success to self-financiers. That trend holds true for candidates from all parties. In fact, in the last nine years, only 11 percent of self-financed candidates won their races. Early primary results in 2010 show this trend may be continuing.

link:
http://www.followthemoney.org/press/ReportView.phtml?r=429

Part of the reason they don't do very well is that they don't have people out there collecting money and canvassing, they tend to rely on television ads.
Candidates who use traditional campaigning techniques (including raising money from other people) get people on the ground volunteering to make calls, knocking on doors, etc -- in other words They develop an organization based on human contact

on edit from www.electoral-vote.com
Three Candidates Spend Quarter of a Billion Dollars

In a campaign awash with money from the Chamber of Commerce and other outside groups, a trio of Republican candidates, Linda McMahon (running for the Senate in Connecticut), Meg Whitman (running for governor of California), and Rick Scott (running for governor of Florida), have already spent a total of $243 million of their own money in their races. For all this cash, the results are a bit disappointing. McMahon is way behnd and nearly certain to lose, Whitman is a bit behind and is more likely to lose than not, and Scott is in a virtual tie. If all three of them lose, the net result may have a chilling effect on millionaires and billionaires thinking of trying to buy public office in the future. On the other hand, future wealthy candidates may ascribe these loses to unique factors not applicable to them (e.g., Whitman has been railing against employers who hire illegal aliens at the same time she employed one in her house for 9 years and the company Scott ran was fined $100 million for defrauding Medicare). McMahon's money comes from professional wrestling, and given how acrimonious the once-civilized Senate has become, there is something to be said for having skills learned hanging around wrestling rings.

[Sienna86]

1. Ego-driven not grassroots support

That's the main problem with these campaigns. You can't buy friends and supporters.

[KharmaTrain]

2. What Price An Ego...

Several years ago I had the chance to interview a candidate who dumped in a massive amount (IRC it was over $500gs for a job that paid 50gs). He had lost the race and the money. I asked him why he spent so much and was it worth it? He was blunt honest in saying the reason he ran was to impress people. Having the title "honorable" was worth every penny as well as all the attention he got during the campaign. He also said he never imagined he would spend as much as he did...but once things got rolling he got sucked up in it; the checks kept on comin'. It was too late to turn back. In the end he lost but his ego got stroked...he expected to make the money back and try again (which he did and won...lasted on whole term). In his world of rotary buddies and country club pals, he was a big man...for him the 500gs was well worth it.

You are right that self-funders generally end up losing as they can't buy everything. I think we're seeing that all the commercials in the world won't turn around a negative perception and may even turn off voters. It also invites the leaches...the "political professionals" who supposedly make up the experience the candidate lacks (and charge a nice penny). Lastly, a self-funder is rarely properly vetted...their money initially papers over their past. It's when an enterprising journalist or political oppo-researcher comes up with the dirt the candidate is caught blindsighted.

I'm hoping MegNut and Mrs. WWE go down big time and those who are relying on millions in Rove, Chamber and Koch money lose as well. If it's made too expensive to "buy" elections, maybe those high rollers will find another toy to play with.

[TreasonousBastard]

3. Well said. After making bazillions, people often do strange things...

at some point many ask "What's the point" and think about their legacy. Some set up charitable foundations, some build monuments, some build libraries, and some run for office. They see themselves as having made some change in the world.

But, some see running for office as just another challenge and bragging point.