A recent poll examining the race for the Democratic nomination for governor next year found that 29% of likely primary voters would vote for former CVS executive Helena Foulkes, and 11% would cast their ballots for incumbent Gov. Daniel J. McKee.
Barring the unexpected, the two camps will be trying to win over the 42% who were undecided in the poll conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center, and trying to sway others to change their minds.
Right now, Foulkes has a substantial financial advantage.
Foulkes raised $534,000 from July 1 to Sept. 30 and ended the quarter with $2.4 million in her campaign account. By comparison, McKee raised $294,813 in the three-month period, leaving him with $1.02 million in his war chest.
But while financial backing is widely assumed to be an essential component of electoral success, given the money required for advertising, outreach and voter mobilization initiatives, do the candidates who raise the most actually win the most?
“Not always," said Wendy Schiller, a professor of political science at Brown University. But money can, of course, help candidates insert themselves into the collective voting consciousness, particularly those with low name recognition.
“Fundraising is key to generating familiarity with voters, even in small states like Rhode Island,” she said. “Money can bring name recognition and fund get-out-the-vote operations.”
Both McKee and Foulkes have plenty of name recognition, considering this is a rematch of the 2022 Democratic primary race for governor, which Foulkes lost. For that reason, Schiller is expecting a political rumble to play out over the next nine months.
“It is not unusual to see rematches in politics and at least in the Democratic gubernatorial primary,” she said. “And if [House] Speaker [K. Joseph] Shekarchi joins the race, the competition could become even more intense.”
So far, the financial horse race is not following the typical script, with Foulkes getting out to a sizeable lead. “Historically, incumbents enjoy significant advantages in fundraising due to established networks and the ability to outspend challengers,” Schiller said.
John Marion, executive director of Common Cause Rhode Island, said fundraising is a necessary, “but not always sufficient condition for winning statewide in Rhode Island.”
“While higher-spending candidates often emerge victorious, candidates with widespread grassroots support can harness their fundraising into actual votes, even in the face of wealthier opponents,” he said. “A good ground game can matter more than simply having the money to run endless ads.”
“Because Helena Foulkes has a deep-pocketed national network of donors, as well as significant personal wealth she can tap. This is not a typical primary,” Marion said.
No matter the comparative size of the political war chests, political strategist Michelle Moreno-Silva says candidates still have to mind the basics of running a campaign.
“Ensuring transparency and ethical practices is just as crucial as raising money itself,” she said. “Because voters — including communities historically ignored in the democratic process — need confidence that candidates are accountable to the public, not to donors.”
Indeed, money will only get you so far in politics.
In the 2022 gubernatorial general election, Republican challenger Ashley Kalus loaned her campaign approximately $2.7 million in her losing bid.
“One thing to look for is whether a candidate raises money or uses their own money by lending it to their campaign,” Schiller said. “If a candidate is raising money from a lot of individual contributors that can translate into individual votes, even if their opponent has more money."
And the respect and authority associated with incumbency can counterbalance financial advantages, according to Schiller. “Incumbency can be an advantage, even when their opponent raises more money because of the sheer power associated with the office," she said.
But political observers see new vulnerabilities with McKee because of his consistently low approval ratings, and some have speculated that he may have become a one-term governor had there not been such a crowded field that divided the vote in that year’s Democratic primary.
Neither Foulkes’ nor McKee’s campaign responded to requests for comment.
Both sides are deploying their cash. An overview of the campaign’s most recent quarterly campaign finance reports shows Foulkes paid $50,000 to Washington, D.C., polling firm Hart Research Associates, $21,000 to fundraising firm Reservoir Strategies, and another $14,019.41 to Louisville, Ky.–based campaign management shop Outperform Strategies.
Meanwhile, McKee's expense report includes a $18,836 payment to AL Media Strategy in Chicago, $22,500 in payments to business-strategy firm AJS Consulting Co. in Narragansett, and $5,000 in fundraising expenses at Rhode Island FC.
Despite sagging poll numbers, Marion said, McKee may have the advantage of the state's underlying partisanship and strong union support; the money game, if nothing else, is a good indicator of things to come.
“While the highest spending candidate doesn’t always win, they’re most likely to win,” he said.
