The History of Self-Funded Candidates is Littered With Losers. Sad!

Trump’s not the first political hopeful to dip into his piggy bank.

Illustration by John Ritter/Photos Clockwise From Top: Reuters (3) and AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Following the latest reports of Donald Trump’s dismal presidential fundraising, the self-professed billionaire insisted he could bail himself out. “If need be, there could be unlimited ‘cash on hand,’ as I would put up my own money,” he said in a statement. Trump has been insisting that he can single-handedly finance his campaign for months. “I’m self-funding my own campaign,” he boasted in February.

So far, more than 70 percent of his campaign’s funds have come from loans he’s made to himself. (Among the top recipients of his campaign spending are his and his family’s businesses.) If Trump’s really going all the way on his own dime—which is unlikely—he’ll have to beat the historically poor showing of self-funded candidates.

 

Ross Perot

Spent $72 million running for president, 1992/1996
The Texas billionaire dipped deep into his pockets to finance his ill-fated runs, including spending $2.9 million in 1992 to air 30-minute TV ads such as the chart-laden infomercial called “Chicken Feathers, Deep Voodoo, and the American Dream.”

 

Michael Huffington

Spent $28 million running for the US Senate in California, 1994
Huffington, then married to future napping guru and media mogul Arianna, spent a record amount on his Senate race, prompting another Republican to decry the “increasing power on the part of moneyed interest.” The naysayer: Mitt Romney, who later pumped $45 million into his 2008 presidential run.

 

Meg Whitman

Spent $144 million running for California governor, 2010
The ex-eBay CEO bid high for the Golden State’s top job but was shut out by Jerry Brown, who spent 80 percent less.

 

Michael Bloomberg

Spent $250 million running for New York City mayor, 2001/2005/2009
Bloomberg has spent more of his personal wealth in (successful) pursuit of office than any other American. When he floated the idea of a 2016 presidential bid, sources said he was willing to spend at least $1 billion.

 

Linda McMahon

Spent $99 million running for the US Senate in Connecticut, 2010/2012
McMahon, the former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, got body-slammed in back-to-back races in which she put up more than 95 percent of her campaign budget. “It’s an incredible amount of money to spend on a campaign,” she conceded after her second loss.

 

Richard Tarrant

Spent $7 million running for the US Senate in Vermont, 2006
In the annals of self-funded candidates, Tarrant is a small fry. But the Republican will be remembered for blowing his wad on negative ads and still getting burned by Bernie Sanders.

 

Steve Forbes

Spent $76 million running for president, 1996/2000
George W. Bush scrambled to raise more than $100 million in 2000, partly out of fear of the flat-tax advocate and Forbes editor’s family fortune. Yet Forbes gained little traction in his runs, proving once again that self-funding your political career may be, in the words of his eponymous business mag, “the worst political investment.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate