Campaign spending: Did big money equal big wins?

It was a midterm election for the history books. With $3.67 billion raised, it was the most expensive midterm election ever. Oregon also saw record campaign spending.

Measure 92, promoting the labeling of foods with genetically modified organisms, has been the most costly measure in the state’s history. The opposing side outspent the supporting side 2.5 to 1, over $20 million vs. $8 million.

“Money has always been important in politics, but I think it’s gotten much more important in recent years, partially because of recent Supreme Court decisions,” Robert Sahr, associate professor for political science at Oregon State University, said Thursday. “That money differential is almost certainly very important in this year’s election.”

It is important, but is it always a game-changer?

“It’s not completely predetermined by the amount of spending,” said Jeff Eager, NewsChannel 21’s political analyst and former Bend mayor. “You do see candidates and ballot measures go the opposite way too, where the the better-funded side loses. “

Labeling GMOs failed, but barely.

Measure 88, which would have given immigrants a driver’s card even if they can’t prove their legal status, failed despite the fact that supporters were better funded than opponents.

Measure 90, which would have created a top-two primary system, failed despite being backed by big money.

However, those might be the exceptions to the rule.

“Over a large number of races, the better-funded candidate or measure tends to prevail,” Eager said.

In the key races for governor and the U.S. Senate, and in the most controversial measures like GMO and marijuana legalization, the biggest money did mean a big win.

And the experts believe campaign spending is only going to increase.

“The limits that used to be present are much less present, and also transparency is much less present because the Supreme Court basically has said that donors don’t need to be necessarily identified,” Sahr said.