Fred, Roy and list --
I indeed do have data on challengers' assets and income (collected for
1992-2000 from the personal financial disclosure reports all candidates
file with the House Clerk). The million-dollar challengers (and the
$350,000 challengers) tend to be
*very* wealthy (even without counting
the value of their homes). Some of them may take out mortgages against
their homes to finance the campaign (instead of using cash or borrowing
against other assets), but very few of them count their home as their
only significant asset.
Nonetheless, the basic point about the pro-incumbent bent of the
Millionaires' Amendment is correct. Anyone interested in my chapter on
the Millionaires' Amendment for The Campaign Finance Institute volume on
the consequences of BCRA -- essentially addressing "what if the MA had
been in effect in 2000?" -- can find it at
www.cfinst.org or, better yet
buy the book!
Jennifer Steen
--
Jennifer A. Steen
Assistant Professor
Political Science Department
Boston College
jennifer.steen@bc.edu
http://www2.bc.edu/~steenje
FredWooch@aol.com wrote:
Roy:
Do you have any data as to how many challengers have actually mortgaged their
million-dollar homes in order to throw that money into their campaigns for
federal office? While your pro-incumbent point is generally well-taken, this
particular example strikes me as fairly fanciful based on my admittedly limited
experience.
Fredric D. Woocher
Strumwasser & Woocher LLP
fwoocher@strumwooch.com
(310) 576-1233