CONGRESS AND THE PEOPLE| 269CAMPAIGN FUND-RAISING
Raising money is also key to staying in offi ce. Incumbents need money to pay for
campaign staff , travel, and advertising. It takes at least $1 million to make a cred-
ible challenge to an incumbent in most districts, and in many areas with expen-
sive media markets the minimum price tag is $2 million or more. Few challengers
can raise that much money. The gap between incumbent and challenger spending
has grown dramatically in the past decade, with incumbents now spending about
three times as much as challengers. Incumbents have far greater potential to
raise vast sums of money, in part because political action committees (PACs) are
unwilling to risk alienating an incumbent by donating to challengers. (For more
on campaign fi nance, see Chapter 7 and Chapter 8.)
Money also functions as a deterrent to potential challengers. A sizeable re-
election fund signals that an incumbent knows how to raise money and will run
a strong campaign. The aim is to convince would-be challengers that they have a
slim chance of beating the incumbent—and to convince contributors and party
organizations that there’s no point in trying to support a challenger. This point
is crucial in explaining incumbency advantage because it is nearly impossible
for a weak challenger to beat an incumbent. Consider that only 10 to 15 percent
of challengers in a typical election year have any previous elective experience;
when such a high proportion of challengers are amateurs, it is not surprising that
so many incumbents win.1948195219561960196419681972197619801984198819921996200020042008201251015202530%Percent defeatedPercent defeated
plus retirementsHOUSE INCUMBENCY RE-ELECTION RATES, 1948–2012
The rate of defeat for incumbent House members is very low, typically in the 5 percent
to 10 percent range, while total turnover is quite a bit higher. Which data are more
central for debates about the importance of term limits? Which data are more central
to discussions of electoral accountability?