JEFF FLAKE

Back before the Sept 2 primaries, I wrote a blog post about why it didn’t really matter which of two Democrats emerged to challenge Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., as neither one had raised any money for their campaigns while Flake was sitting on pile of cash. If you read the comments under that post, you’ll note I took quite bit of criticism for suggesting that advertising funds and name recognition have far more influence over election campaigns than ideas, character, values or any of the other issues that voters are supposed to weigh.

Well, with the vote counting nearly over, Democrat Rebecca Schneider stuck to her principles in the 6th Congressional District, but failed to make any sort of impression in the general election. Through Oct. 15, Schneider had raised only $4,900 compared to Flake’s $1.2 million. That lopsided advantage was reflected on election day as Flake had the largest margin of victory among Arizona’s Republican candidates elected to Congress. This includes not only the percentage of votes cast (62.5 percent for Flake vs. 34.5 percent for Schneider) but also the difference in voting totals (191,540 for Flake vs. 105,862 for Schneider as of today, for a gap of about 85,300 votes). Arizona’s senior congressmen, Democrat Ed Pastor of Phoenix, defeated his largely unknown Republican opponent with 72 percent of the vote in the 4th Congressional District. But his winning margin was only about 56,300 votes.

I mentioned in my original post the difficult cycle that exists between money and federal candidates. You have to raise a good sum of money to get serious attention (at least a million dollars in Arizona); but you have to be taken seriously in order to raise that kind of money. A lot of people don’t like that, which is one big reason behind the push for publicly funded campaigns. But the federal courts appeared headed to ruling such systems unconstitutional if they force, coerce or intimidate any candidate into participating instead of running with private donations.