Away Field Advantage
My last blog post referenced a fascinating report by OpenSecrets that identified a trend of federal congressional candidates receiving an increasing share of out-of-state contributions. One interesting element of the report is its analysis of in-district fundraising. In the last two election cycles, only a quarter of the money for U.S. House candidates came from within the district they were running for. This ratio seems like a great initial indicator for how “grassroots“ a campaign is. Let’s look at how this shakes out in Massachusetts’ state elections.
I pulled all individual, committee, and union/association campaign contributions from 1/1/2024 through 5/31/2024 to the State Senate races in Suffolk, Norfolk, Middlesex, Plymouth, and Cape/Island districts where there was more than one candidate. Notably, I excluded campaign loans, which allow candidates to contribute to their own campaigns in excess of the $1,000 limit. I then matched each contribution address to its corresponding State Senate district using the state’s Find My New District tool using Google Apps Script. Here’s the picture:
Of the approximately $665,000 raised by the 21 candidates during this period, only $270,000 (40.7%) originated from the district that the candidate is running in. Of the five candidates that raised over $50,000, only one (Julian Cyr, Cape & Islands District) received most of their money from within the district they are running in.
A similar pattern emerges in the State Representative races for the same districts.
Only 34.9% of the $1.3 million in contributions to the State Rep races came from the candidates’ districts. The top fundraiser — Democratic Incumbent Jeffrey Roy of the 10th Norfolk District — only raised $700 from his constituents. Races in the 25th Middlesex District (Marjorie Decker & Evan MacKay for Cambridge) and 35th Middlesex District (Paul Donato, Nichole Mossalam, & Zayda Ortiz for Malden/Medford) both sourced less than 20% of campaign funds from within their districts.
This analysis has some admitted shortcomings. Specifically, the small sample, focus on urban and suburban districts, and the timing of the period being measured. Maybe candidates that begin their campaign early start raising money within their district and then have to reach additional districts once they saturate local contributions. This is consistent with the negative slope of the trendline. Nevertheless, I was surprised to observe that most campaign contribution dollars in these elections did not come from the candidates’ prospective constituents.
If you combine the State Senate and Rep races, only 37% of the campaign contributions are sourced from within the candidates’ districts. This first look raises important questions about campaign finance. Do most voters know (or care) about how their prospective elected officials carve their path to office? Would seeing a candidate funded by outsider interests mobilize voter engagement or foster complacency? If you told me that there was a sale in my neighborhood for 37 cents on the dollar, I’d be pretty excited. But I don’t think many voters would be thrilled to learn that their voice is what’s on sale.
