For immediate release                                                                                                    For more information contact:
December 18, 2000                                                                                                      Janice Thompson 503-283-1922

Spending in the 2000 general election by Oregon Senate candidates increased 43% over 1998 expenditure levels. The increase for House races was 36% from the 1998 to the 2000 general election.¹
 

Office	1998 general  election expenditures	2000 general  election expenditures	increase
Senate	$2,464,161	$3,515,343	+43%
House	$5,615,167	$7,656,716	+36%

The Senate expenditure average increased from $77,005 in 1998 when there were 32 candidates to $117,178 in the 2000 general election with 30 candidates. The House spending average went up from $43,528 in the 1998 general election with 129 candidates to $62,250 in 2000 with 123 candidates. The 2000 general election median expenditures are lower than the averages. This is a reflection of expensive races, especially in the Senate, pulling up the averages. The Senate median expenditure was $25,420 and the median House expenditure was $33,181.²

Even with this increased spending too many voters still had little choice since 73% of Senate races involved an opponent who was drowned out by a much higher spending candidate or there was only one candidate. Sixty percent of House races were in these very uncompetitive categories.
 

Competitiveness*	# of Senate races	% of 15 Senate races
Unopposed	2	13%	73%
Drowned out	9	60%
Lopsided	1	7%
Struggled to keep up	1	7%
Equal opportunity	2	13%

Competitiveness*	# of House races	% of 60 House races
Unopposed	6	10%	60%
Drowned out	30	50%
Lopsided	6	10%
Struggled to keep up	6	10%
Equal opportunity	12	20%

In the Senate 87% of the races (13 out of 15) were won by candidates who outspent their opponents. There were two exceptions. Eileen Qutub spent more money than her opponent Ryan Deckert who was shifting to the Senate from the House. This race was still in the most competitive, "equal opportunity" category with Deckert spending 94% of the total expenditure of Qutub. Ken Messerle, a former legislator, won even though he was outspent by his opponent Roger McCorkle. This race was less financially competitive with the winner, Messerle, spending 60% of the total general election expenditures of his opponent.

In the House 92% of the races (55 out of 60) were won by candidates who outspent their opponents. There were five winners who were outspent by opponents. Four of those races were in the "equal opportunity" category with reasonably comparable levels of money. The remaining outspent winner was in a race at the third level of competitiveness.

Incumbent advantage was also prevalent in the 2000 general election. In the Senate all of the winners were either incumbents (7 out of 15) or former legislators (8 of 15). All incumbents and former legislators in Senate races outspent their opponents with the exception of Ryan Deckert, a former House member, who was outspent by the Senate incumbent, Eileen Qutub.

In the House 58% of the winners (35 out of 60) were incumbents. All the incumbents outspent their opponents except for Vicki Walker who defeated Jeffrey Miller, a former mayor of Eugene, who mounted a vigorous challenge after joining the race as a Republican write-in.

"Two of the three statewide winners outspent their opponents and 91% of legislative winners had higher expenditures than their opponents. It is encouraging to see that some races are not decided by how much money is spent during the election but campaign fundraising and spending is still the best measure of success," summarizes Janice Thompson.
 
 

*The most competitive, "equal opportunity" races were those where the expenditure levels of opponents were within 75 to 100% of each other and voters were be able to hear messages of both candidates. The third level of competition is designated "a struggle to keep up" and identifies races with spending levels within 50 to 75% of each other. Voters were likely to hear more from the top spending candidate but the other candidate had the resources to get some level of message out to the public. The "lopsided" label designates races where an opponent has only 25 to 50% of the resources of another candidate and voters likely heard much more from one candidate than the other. The "drowned out" races involved candidates whose expenditure levels are 0 to 25% of his or her rival. Voters were likely to feel they only have one choice because they probably hadn't heard anything from opponents.³
 
 

1. The 1998 general election expenditure totals are from the Summary Report of Campaign Contributions and Expenditures General Election, November 3, 1998. The 2000 general election spending figures are calculated from the Secretary of State website, www.sos.state.or.us
2. Median is the midpoint figure in a series of numbers. 50% of the expenditure totals are above and 50% of the expenditure totals are below the medians given above.
3. These competitiveness levels are based on 2000 general election expenditure levels as calculated from the Secretary of State website, www.sos.state.or.us