Political Fundraising Can Help and Hurt Candidates' Image

CHICAGO - Good news and bad news for Hillary Rodham Clinton, Barack Obama, and other Democratic presidential candidates raising bank loads of money: All that cash can both hurt and help your image with the public.

The good news. Raise a lot of money and voters are more likely to think you're competent, particularly if you're a political conservative. The bad news? It might also raise doubts about your integrity, particularly if you're a liberal Democrat.

Those are the conclusions of a new study reported Thursday at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association. Three researchers from Ohio State University - Jason Reineke, Andrew Hayes, and Gregory Richey - tested the idea by showing newspaper articles about a mayoral campaign to 239 adults. Embedded in those news stories were references to the fund-raising prowess of the candidates. Later the participants in the study rated the candidates on several traits, including leadership, honesty, intelligence, and competency.

The liberal candidate who raised the most money was perceived as lower in integrity. That's bad news for Hillary Clinton, the Democrat who currently leads all presidential candidates in fund-raising.

Further, there was no similar drop for conservative candidates who raised a lot of money. Quite the contrary, the conservative candidate best at raising money was more likely to be considered "competent" - particularly by conservative voters.

Why the difference? For conservative candidates, successful fund-raising "may signify a great individual achievement, leadership, and loyalty among his supporters," the researchers noted. . . . Similarly, he is perceived as being more competent when he has more money, perhaps because he has done what it takes to win without violating . . . his ideological principles."

"The liberal candidate, however, does not fair so well in the court of public opinion by raising more money," they added. "Across the board, respondents felt the liberal had less integrity when he had more money."

Why the negative reaction for liberal candidates? Perhaps because it goes against the grain of liberal ideology, whose candidates are "supposed to 'share the wealth," the researchers noted.

Still, the three researchers said their findings should be interpreted cautiously. They only looked at one campaign. Further, they looked only at images, not voting behavior.

Regardless, the results mirror what's happening in the current presidential campaign. Rudy Giuliani leads all Republicans in fund-raising, bringing in more than $11 million in the third quarter. He also wears the mantle of a strong leader, primarily based on his handling of New York City following the 9/11attacks.

Hillary Clinton leads the Democrats in political bucks, raising $22 million in the third quarter alone. Still, the latest polls place her negative ratings at more than 40 percent - the highest unfavorable for candidates in either party - with many voters expressing doubts about her integrity.

Either way, given the role of money in today's campaigns, the researchers believe candidates should be forewarned about public reaction to their fund-raising efforts. At the very least, they noted, "Politicians would do well to consider these findings when attempting to frame the public discussion about their own fundraising fortunes."