ILLUSTRATION BY Trevor Johnston.

Tarrant has some momentum going into the September 12 primary. A straw poll at the state Republican convention this spring gave him an edge over his opponent, Greg Parke. He will face a stiffer political (and financial) challenge in the general election this fall, which will most likely pit him against Congressman Bernie Sanders, a liberal independent who has represented Vermont for 16 years. In a poll of 400 likely voters conducted in May, Sanders led Tarrant 61 percent to 24 percent.

Since Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act some 35 years ago, it has sought to level the playing field by providing for the public funding of election campaigns. Because of this, self-funding is now rare. It was not until 1992 that a self-funder—Ross Perot—attempted the nation’s highest office (running on a platform of campaign finance reform). But his failure that year, and again in 1996, along with Steve Forbes’ quixotic 1996 presidential campaign, illustrated not only the growth in self-funded political gambits, but the problems that plague them.

Successful self-funders have typically invested enormous sums to win. In 2000, Corzine, former CEO of Goldman Sachs, spent a record $60 million on his winning bid for a Senate seat from New Jersey. Five years later, he spent $40 million in a successful bid for governor. In 2005, Bloomberg, who founded the news and financial data behemoth that bears his name, spent $85 million in his bid to head up New York City.

SELF-FUNDED FAILURES Of the 10 candidates who spent the most on financing their own campaigns in the 2004 House and Senate elections, none won. Out of the 30 highest-spending self-funders, only Michael McCaul (R-Texas), at number 12, was elected. (Source: The Center for Responsive Politics.)
Candidate	Race	Personal contributions and/or loans to campaign	Percent of self-financing to campaign total	Result
1. Blair Hull (D-Ill.)	Senate	$28,658,890	98.6	Lost primary
2. Douglas Gallagher (R-Fla.)	Senate	$6,586,325	95.9	Lost primary
3. Jack Ryan (R-Ill.)	Senate	$5,217,500	63.2	Dropped out
4. Erskine B. Bowles (D-N.C.)	Senate	$3,757,012	28.0	Lost election
5. Benjamin Earl Streusand (R-Texas)	House	$3,489,000	96.4	Lost primary runoff
6. Tom Ravenel (R-S.C.)	Senate	$2,928,325	89.1	Lost primary
7. Russ Darrow (R-Wis.)	Senate	$2,918,975	60.4	Lost primary
8. James D. Oberweis (R-Ill.)	Senate	$2,908,938	88.8	Lost primary
9. Jeanne L. Patterson (R-Mo.)	House	$2,803,940	87.0	Lost election
10. Tim J. Michels (R-Wis.)	Senate	$2,430,000	43.9	Lost election

But Corzine and Bloomberg are curiosities. The vast majority of such efforts fail. Research from the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group in Washington, D.C., indicates that only one of the 30 congressional candidates who spent at least $500,000 of their own money in the 2004 election cycle was elected—Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican. Two dropped out before their primary, 15 lost their primaries, one dropped out after his primary and 11 lost their general elections. Blair Hull, an Illinois Democrat, was the biggest loser in 2004; the former financial industry CEO spent more than $28 million on his bid for a Senate seat, but lost his primary to Barack Obama.

THE MOST EXPENSIVE LOSS: The most expensive losing campaign in recent years was run by Blair Hull, who sold his electronic derivatives trading firm to Goldman Sachs for $531 million. Hull launched a campaign to win the Democratic Party nomination for an Illinois Senate seat in 2004, spending almost $29 million of his personal capital. Hull surged to a large lead in the polls, but, shortly before the primary election, allegations surfaced that he had abused his ex-wife. His popularity plummeted, opening the door for Illinois state Senator Barack Obama, who won the primary and the general election. THE MOST EXPENSIVE VICTORY: The highest-spending self-funder in campaign history is Jon Corzine, who won two self-financed election bids. The former Goldman Sachs CEO spent more than $60 million in his 2000 Senate campaign—more than $35 million on the primary election alone. Corzine was elected to the Senate in 2001. Last year, he spent close to $40 million of his own money on his successful campaign for New Jersey governor. —Tim Chan

In the decade between 1990 and 2000, self-funded candidates for congressional seats won only about 30 percent of their elections, according to Jennifer Steen, assistant professor of political science at Boston College and author of a new book, Self-Financed Candidates in Congressional Elections. "People assume that lots of money should make a candidate really strong and that should be a huge advantage—and it should be," Steen says. "But what was really surprising to me initially was that it really wasn’t. I just couldn’t believe how much they were losing. For a lot of them, the only thing they had going for them was the money."

Even this is less of an advantage than it was in the past. Congress passed the so-called Millionaires’ Amendment in 2002 as part of a revised federal campaign finance law. The amendment attempts to offset the perceived financial advantage enjoyed by those with substantial means. It dictates that if one candidate lends or contributes to his or her own campaign beyond a certain threshold—set according to the population in the state or district—the opponent may seek contributions from individual donors of up to $6,300 for House races and $12,600 for Senate races.

With their fiscal weaponry blunted by this legislation, today’s self-financed candidates are finding that not only does their wealth fail to give an electoral edge, but it can become a millstone. Rivals typically paint even the most homespun wealth-holders as out of touch with their constituents. And candidates who hope to shield themselves from the compromises inherent in fundraising have discovered that this may also keep them from establishing a network of supporters and the type of diplomatic skills necessary to pursue legislative initiatives successfully.

Embarrassment of Riches
Tarrant hopes Vermonters will ignore his wealth and focus on his achievements. Born in Orange, N.J., he attended St. Michael’s College in Colchester, Vt., on a basketball scholarship and eventually won All-America honors. In 1969, he cofounded what would become one of the largest employers in Vermont, IDX Systems. He sold the health care software company to General Electric in 2005 for $1.5 billion, of which he reportedly netted $108 million. Tarrant also formed a foundation that was named among the state’s top 50 in 2003 by the Foundation Center.

RICH TARRANT Photograph by David Seaver.

At 63, Tarrant remains a towering figure; standing 6 feet, 6 inches, he is easy to spot in the crowds as he shakes hands at barbecues and spaghetti dinners across his state. His campaign promises feature plans to improve national health care through a free market-based Medicare system, curbs on federal spending and ideas to boost economic growth in rural areas. "I need a podium or platform to do that," he says. The chance to mount such a platform appeared when Jeffords, a former Republican who became an independent in 2001, announced last year that he would retire from the seat after three terms.

Although Vermont has a historical tradition of sending Republicans to Washington, Tarrant’s campaign is seen as a long shot. His rivals and the press have excoriated him for his affluent lifestyle, which goes over poorly before an electorate made up of thrifty Yankees, despite his attempts to downplay it. At public events, he usually dresses casually and was rarely spotted in a tie this summer, as he crisscrossed the state, hosting a spaghetti dinner in Hardwick, a pizza lunch in Rutland and stopping by for a photo op at BJ’s gun shop in Williston.

ILLUSTRATION BY Tim Bower.

But voters found out Tarrant leads a more lavish lifestyle at his second home in Florida than he does in Vermont. Peter Freyne, a columnist for Seven Days, an alternative newspaper in Burlington, made an issue of Tarrant’s Bentley, which he houses in Florida. "His style is such that when 90 percent of Vermonters see the size of his houses, the amount of money he made—they just don’t identify with him," maintains Eric Davis, a professor of political science at Middlebury College. Tarrant, for his part, seems annoyed that he must answer for the way he lives. "I am what I am," he declares. "I don’t apologize for being successful."

Despite this, Tarrant’s biggest challenge is not establishing his Vermonter credentials in the minds of voters, but gaining the political credibility needed to beat his Democratic opponent. If he captures the Republican primary (Boston College’s Steen found that self-financing is more successful in primaries than general elections), he will face an opponent in Sanders who, although he was born in Brooklyn and still displays hints of an accent, is so familiar that Vermonters refer to him simply as Bernie. Tarrant’s local roots, wealth, entrepreneurial credentials and folksy manner may not be enough to offset the popularity Sanders has built during his 16 years in Congress. Indeed, Davis believes Tarrant has little chance against Sanders; many Vermonters see him as something of a reverse carpetbagger. Some speculate that, if Tarrant loses, he will retreat south to Florida. The candidate himself remains inscrutable on this point, responding tersely, "I don’t think about losing."

Strife of Interests
Those who run successful self-funded campaigns face an array of additional challenges, as Mark Dayton can attest. Dayton, a Democratic senator from Minnesota, was so motivated to advance his liberal political agenda that he self-funded two campaigns before finally winning his seat in the Senate in 2000.

Dayton’s family fortune is rooted in the Dayton’s department store chain (now part of Federated Department Stores), which gave him the advantage of name recognition. He also had public-sector experience, having served as popularly elected state auditor and as legislative aide to Minnesota favorite son Walter Mondale.

Still, he struggled against a scornful public’s perception of a wealthy man dabbling in politics. He lost a bid for the Senate in 1982 and for governor in 1998. However, those campaigns, and his work as state auditor, earned him public-sector credibility in the eyes of voters. That, and the $12 million of his own capital he spent, finally secured him a seat in the Senate in 2000. (The run was actually more costly, Dayton notes. Accounting for the capital gains taxes he paid on the assets he sold to finance his run, he estimates that it actually cost him about $20 million.)

Although he invested enormous resources, Dayton’s commanding personal style, independence and idealism alienated his Senate colleagues and limited his effectiveness as a lawmaker. Larry Jacobs, director of the Humphrey Institute’s Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota, says Dayton’s independent streak verges on bull-headedness and pushed a wedge between him and his Senate peers. This kept Dayton from forming the necessary political collaborations and prevented significant bills he championed from advancing. But Dayton insists he was unwilling to compromise his political positions—such as his opposition to the war in Iraq and growth of the deficit—even if he could have made legislative progress by doing so.

MARK DAYTON

In April, Time anointed Dayton one of the five worst serving senators, labeling him "the blunderer." The magazine cited his gaffes and some erratic behavior, including his decision to shut down his Washington office in October 2004 because of an unspecified terrorist threat. But Time’s dubious distinction may reflect Washington’s view of his service rather than his popularity back home. "His constituents, they don’t mind him being a naysayer," Jacobs explains, pointing to polls that show Dayton has earned about 50 percent or better voter approval ratings throughout his tenure. He has garnered support at home with generous gestures. For example, each year he has used the after-tax portion of his approximately $165,000 Senate salary to charter buses to transport senior citizens from Minnesota to Canada to buy inexpensive prescription drugs, a move that won him many friends among older voters (but none in the pharmaceutical industry).

The obvious drawback to self-funding for Dayton is his inability to continue to do it; he is not seeking reelection mainly because he cannot afford to finance another campaign. He attempted to raise some capital in January 2005, but his efforts met with a tepid response, which is not surprising because he finds the idea of asking for contributions distasteful. "The way I was brought up, it was just something you didn’t do," he says. "We had money, so we didn’t have to ask for it. I don’t enjoy it per se." He adds, "I don’t have a problem raising money for organizations or even other candidates, but just hate to ask for money for myself."

WHAT'S WEALTH GOT TO DO WITH IT?  The five wealthiest men and women currently serving in the House and Senate contributed little, if any, of their own money to their last political campaigns. Yet all of them, save John Kerry, won. (Sources: Roll Call, Federal Elections Commission)
	Last election	Result	Net worth last election	% Contributed to campaign
John Kerry (D-Mass.)	2004 presidential campaign	Lost to George W. Bush	$1 billion	0.6
Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.)	2000 Senate race	Won	$200 million	0
Herb Kohl (D-Wis.)	2000 Senate race	Won	$300 million	1.6
Jane Harman (D-Calif.)	2002 House race	Won	$100 million	0
Darrell Issa (R-Calif.)	2002 House race	Won	$110 million	0

Dayton also dislikes the quid pro quos embedded in political contributions, seeing them as "investments for which [contributors are] looking for something in return." His reluctance to fundraise has left him without the crucial database of individual supporters needed to support a reelection campaign. And, while self-funding allowed him to indulge his independent streak, it also isolated him from well-connected insiders. "I’m not a ready compromiser," he admits. This is a particularly debilitating character trait for those serving in a minority party, which he found frustrating. He strongly disagrees with the Bush administration on issues ranging from the Iraq war to the size of the deficit. "My own political convictions are what drove to me seek this office and to serve in it."

Despite the differences and setbacks, Dayton says he values his experience on Capitol Hill. "It was extremely expensive, but it was worth it."

Elizabeth Harris, based in New York, is a staff writer for Worth.

Additional Information
 The $60 Million Message
 Shallow Roots