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.