Monica Wehby

WASHINGTON — With five weeks left until election day, television airwaves will remain jammed with political advertising, giving candidates with the most cash on hand an advantage in getting their message to voters.

Fundraising figures from the third quarter are not available yet, but heading into July in Oregon’s U.S. Senate race, incumbent Democrat Sen. Jeff Merkley enjoyed a huge cash advantage over Republican challenger Monica Wehby, with $3.5 million cash on hand to Wehby’s $647,000.

In some ways, Merkley’s money edge is hardly surprising; as an incumbent, he’s had the entire campaign cycle of six years to court donors, racking up $9.2 million over that period.

Wehby, a pediatric neurosurgeon from Portland, declared her candidacy in October 2013 and has since raised $2.05 million.

Over the same period, Merkley collected more than $3.8 million in contributions, outraising her in every quarter, according to financial reports filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Wehby also spent money during a contested primary, which Merkley avoided.

Both campaigns declined to discuss their media strategy leading to the Nov. 4 election or how big their ad buys would be in the coming weeks.

At this point in the race, money is arguably the most important factor, said Jim Moore, an assistant professor of politics and government at Pacific University in Forest Grove.

Particularly in a statewide race, candidates have to reach a mass market, because there are too many voters for campaigns to contact them each individually, he said.

“The way that you do that is publicity, and the way that you control that is with your own money, your own advertisements, mailings and phone banks,” said Moore. “The challenger’s money has to introduce the candidate and explain why this candidate is a better choice than what we already have.”

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization that monitors money in politics, incumbents enjoy a huge money advantage over their challengers. In the 2014 races, incumbent senators have raised an average of $9.6 million, whereas challengers, which includes primary candidates, averaged $763,000.

A closer look at the donors to the two campaigns reveals deeper contrasts than total numbers.

For individual donors, 54 percent of contributions to Merkley’s campaign came from Oregon and 46 percent from out of state. For Wehby, 48 percent of contributions came from in-state while 52 percent came from elsewhere.

“As a general rule, incumbents get more out-of-state money than challengers, a reflection of their status as members of Congress and the wider circles in which they travel,” the Center for Responsive Politics notes. “Challengers and newcomers are rarely well-known outside their state, so their ability to raise funds beyond their district is more limited.”

The top five metro areas for Merkley were Portland ($1.2 million), Washington, D.C. ($196,881), New York ($172,949), San Francisco ($166,619) and Eugene-Springfield ($122,785). Wehby’s top five were Portland ($500,046), Eugene-Springfield ($72,350), Salem ($63,850), New York ($42,550) and Orange County, California ($41,350).

Wehby drew most of her support from large donors who gave $200 or more. Those contributors accounted for 73 percent ($1.5 million) of her total haul. Small donors contributed 10 percent ($209,556) of her total, while Political Action Committees, or PACs, accounted for 16 percent ($334,283).

For Merkley, small donations made up 30 percent ($2.74 million) of his total, with large contributions accounting for 43 percent ($3.96 million). PACs contributed 21 percent of his total, or $1.91 million.

Individual contributors of note for Merkley included film director Steven Spielberg, billionaire philanthropist George Soros, who often gives to liberal causes, and film executive Jeffrey Katzenberg. Wehby’s donors included Earl Kendrick, managing partner of the Arizona Diamondbacks, Stephen Schwarzman, chairman and CEO of the private equity firm the Blackstone Group, Ross Perot Jr., son of the former independent presidential candidate, and Nike CEO Phil Knight.

The two candidates tapped into support from different industries.

For Merkley, the top 10 industries that contributed to his campaign were lawyers and law firms; retired individuals; leadership PACs; securities and investment; real estate; health professionals; education; computers/Internet; lobbyists; and insurance, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Wehby’s top 10 industries were health professionals; leadership PACs; retired individuals; securities and investment; real estate; oil and gas; forestry and forest products; business services; hospitals and nursing homes; and building materials and equipment.

During the race, Merkley’s campaign has criticized Wehby as being a surrogate for the interests of the oil billionaire Koch brothers, who have spent more than $1 million on advertising criticizing Merkley through Freedom Partners Action Fund, a Koch-affiliated super PAC.

Given the amount of money Merkley has raised from moneyed interests, this can come off as hypocritical, Moore, the Pacific University professor, said.

“It is hypocritical, but the candidates will argue that it’s not big money (that’s the problem), it’s big money from certain out-of-state interests,” he said.

One reason the Koch brothers are supporting Wehby is that they think she has a chance to oust Merkley, he said. Additionally, they’ve played a prominent role in the race because “she doesn’t have a big enough war chest to drown them out, or make them a minor part of her campaign,” Moore said.

— Reporter: 202-662-7456, aclevenger@bendbulletin.com