One of the most striking findings in the recent FEC summary of Congressional campaign finance was the drop in median spending for Democrats in open seat districts won by Republicans. (Here is the Table from the FEC News Release.)
Open seats are usually the most competitive (and expensive) races, and generally its assumed that competitive races require something like $600,000 or more in campaign spending. In 2002, for example, Republicans were successful in 31 open seat races, and the median spending for the Democratic candidates was about $700,000 even in a losing cause. In the 18 similar districts in 2004, however, the median spending for the Democrat was only $104,624. That means there were as many of these Democratic candidates who spent less than $104,624 as there were who spent more.
By comparison, in the 12 open districts won by Democrats, the median spending for Republican candidates who lost was $923,630, compared with $539,492 two years earlier. (Here is a list of the 2004 districts and candidates.)
What happened?
Fewer Competitive Districts
First, it looks like the open seat districts weren't very competitive. In only four (20%) of the 20 open seat districts did the Republican winner get less than 55% of the vote. For Republican open seat winners in the previous five election cycles the lowest percentage had been 32% in 2002. (Here's the table from the release.) Five of the 12 districts (42%) with a Democratic winner were competitive by this definition, and this was also a smaller percentage than in any of the last five elections.
In half of the Republican districts the winner got more than 60% of the general election vote - a result achieved in five open districts with Democratic winners. We've also prepared a chart that shows that in 2004 the percentage of open seat races that were "safe" - i.e. that were won with 60% of the vote or more - reached its highest point during the last 20 years.
Democratic Spending Declines
The dramatic difference in median spending for losers in these 2004 open seats, though, is not just a function of vote margins in these districts. For example, all six of the Republicans who lost but got at least 40% of the vote spent $1 million or more, but among the eight Democrats who got 40% or more in a losing cause, only 3 spent more than $1 million and four spent less than $600,000.
