Can Money Buy Happiness or the Presidency?

Michael Bloomberg’s billions might help him gain footing in a crowded race, but he’s drawing ire from fellow Democrats. Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg launched his presidential bid with an autobiographical TV ad that cost nearly $24 million.

THE PARTY THAT RAILS about money in politics just acquired another wealthy contender who can self-fund his campaign. And that is causing a great deal of resentment among the candidates struggling to raise the cash to compete in a crowded Democratic primary field.

Former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg launched his presidential bid with an autobiographical TV ad that cost nearly $24 million, the first of an ad campaign projected to add up to $31 million by Dec. 3. That is a record for a single-week ad expenditure for a presidential candidate, according to the media tracking firm Advertising Analytics.

It's pocket change for the billionaire businessman, who is worth an estimated $56 billion. It's also more money for a single ad campaign than 11 of the now-back-to-18 Democratic presidential candidates have raised in their entire campaigns. It's even more than the cash-on-hand held by any of the Democrats candidates except Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who has $33.7 million in his campaign account.

The Democratic field has typically offered a standard "welcome" to those who join the race. But the late entry by Bloomberg, a onetime Republican mayor who has said he's unhappy with the many choices Democrats have for their nominee, rankled candidates who have been fundraising and campaigning for many months.

"I'm disgusted by the idea that Michael Bloomberg or any other billionaire thinks they can circumvent the political process and spend tens of millions of dollars to buy our election," Sanders said in a statement. "It's just the latest example of a rigged political system."

Others were less blunt, but agreed. "I don't think a person, just because they have billions of dollars, should sit back and say, 'you know what, yeah, I think I'll run for election right now and drop $100 million,'" Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey said while campaigning in New Hampshire over the weekend. Booker had a surge of donations after a strong debate performance last week but is still trying to meet the threshold to qualify for the Dec. 19 debate in Los Angeles. Bloomberg, who said earlier this year he would self-fund if he ran for president, could not qualify for any debate if he does not get a certain number of individual donors.

"This election should not be for sale – not to billionaires, not to corporate executives," Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said on the campaign trail Warren has made a "wealth tax" to pay for education and child care a central theme of her campaign. "We've got to get the money out of politics," said Sen.Kamala Harris of California, adding that she is constantly having to raise money to get her message across to voters.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota told reporters in New Hampshire that she does not "believe you get the best candidate when there's such a bias in terms of money. I don't believe that's how this works."

Klobuchar's observation is not just wishful thinking by the less-affluent of the contenders. Self-funded candidates more often than not end up losing their primaries or general elections.

Tom Steyer, the billionaire activist, has dumped $47 million into his primary campaign, and while he has been able to make it on to the debate stage, he remains in single digits in the polls.

In the 2018 campaign, just 9 of 41 largely self-funded candidates ended up winning their race, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group. Two of the wealthy winners – Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Rep. Greg Gianforte, Republican of Montana, were incumbents. In 2016, 5 of 23 self-funded candidates won their races.

One of those 2016 winners, notably, was President Donald Trump, who sunk $66 million of his own money into his campaign. This election cycle, Trump – who tweeted in 2016 that by self-funding his campaign, "I am not controlled by my donors, special interests or lobbyists. I am only working for the people of the U.S.!" – has contributed $8,021 to his own campaign, compared to more than $248 million raised from campaign committees and outside groups.

Bloomberg also self-funded his campaigns for mayor, spending $74 million in 2001, and $84 million in 2005. After successfully advocating for legislation allowing him to run for a third term, Bloomberg spent $109 million for his winning 2009 campaign for mayor – more than 11 times that of his Democratic opponent, who lost by less than 5 percentage points.

The ability to self-fund is an appealing option for political parties, since they can dole out their dollars to vulnerable incumbents and promising first-time candidates. But it has its downside, as well.

The ability to collect donations, no matter how small the amount, is widely viewed as a sign of a candidate's viability. Not only is the cash needed to run a campaign, but there is a belief that people who make even a $5 donation are more likely to vote, since they are literally invested in the campaign.

Further, Democrats this cycle are making a big issue out of money in campaigns, and the optics of an uber-wealthy, self-funded candidate can pose problems. Democrats have made it their central mission to defeat a rich, white, male New Yorker who switched parties before running for president. The fact that Bloomberg also fills that description may not help his chances.