2000 - Bush vs. Gore
The 2000 butterfly ballot, used in Florida
Vice President Al Gore, who seeks to succeed President Bill Clinton, faces a primary challenge from former Democratic Senator Bill Bradley, of New Jersey, who tries to position himself as a more liberal alternative to the centrist Gore. Both contenders raise funds early and aggressively. By January 1, Gore’s campaign, which relies most heavily on contributions from lawyers, the real estate industry, and Wall Street, already has amassed $28.2 million and spent all but $5.7 million of it. Bradley, who the Center for Responsive Politics once labeled “the king of bundling” for his prowess at raising contributions from multiple members of the same family or business, takes in $27 million and has $8.3 million remaining in the bank. Bradley begins to overtake Gore in fundraising, but unfortunately for him, that doesn’t translate into popularity. After edging past Bradley by four points (50 percent to 46 percent) in the New Hampshire primary, Gore sweeps the rest of the primaries and coasts to the Democratic nomination.
On the Republican side, Texas Governor George W. Bush leads a crowded field that also includes Senator John McCain of Arizona and publisher Steve Forbes, who spends $32 million of his own money before dropping out of the race in February. Bush decides to forgo public funding in the primaries, allowing him to raise unlimited sums. Tapping into the same network of oil, real estate, and financial executives who had underwritten the political career of his father, former President George H.W. Bush, he amasses an unprecedented $117 million, 42 percent of which comes in contributions of $200 or more. Much of the money is raised by Bush’s “Pioneers,” the title bestowed on bundlers who raise at least $100,000 apiece. When asked in an April 2000 interview about whether, as president, he would be more likely to return telephone calls from his financial benefactors, Bush is evasive. “Could be . . . you know, I don’t know . . . it depends on the issue, I think, in all fairness,” he replies.
Bush’s campaign also spends lavishly, burning through $50 million before the first primary vote is cast in New Hampshire. Even so, the Texan has a crushing financial edge over the toughest challenger, McCain, who has raised $21 million by the same point but spent all but $342,000 of it.
Money becomes an issue early in the race, in part because of McCain’s advocacy of campaign-finance reform, including limits on soft money. Bush vigorously attacks McCain’s proposed legislation, saying that it is “bad for Republicans and it’s going to hurt the conservative cause.” McCain’s impact on the issue is blunted a bit when he is faced with embarrassing questions about his contacts with the Federal Communications Commission, urging a speedy vote on the proposed acquisition of a TV station, on behalf of a broadcasting company whose executives had donated $20,000 to his campaign and provided him with use of a corporate jet.
Regardless of that stumble, McCain shocks Bush by trouncing him, 48 percent to 30 percent, in the New Hampshire primary. But Bush regroups to win in South Carolina, soon overwhelms McCain with his superior resources and organization, and easily wins the nomination.
In the general election, both Bush and Gore receive $67.6 million in public funding. But that accounts for only a portion of what’s spent in the campaign. The GOP raises a record $211 million in soft-money contributions, a 74 percent increase over 1996, while the Democrats raise $199 million, an 85 percent increase. It is the first presidential election in history in which the political parties spend more on television ads — $79.9 million total — than the $67.1 million spent by Bush and Gore’s own campaign organizations on such spots, according to an analysis by the New York-based Brennan Center for Justice. If that weren’t enough, an additional $16 million in media buys — $14 million on behalf of Gore, $2 million for Bush — is pumped into the race by organizations known as “527s” (after the relevant section of the U.S. tax code) that are not officially connected to either campaign.
In November, Gore wins the popular vote by 48.38 percent to 47.87 percent for Bush, a margin of 543,000 votes. (Green Party candidate Ralph Nader finishes third, with 2.7 percent of the vote.) Bush, however, claims victory in the Electoral College, by virtue of an apparently razor-thin 537-vote margin of victory in Florida. Gore declines to concede, and instead calls for a hand recount in four key Florida counties. A bitter fight ensues for more than a month after the election. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes, and in a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, stops the recount and essentially awards the White House to Bush.
SOURCES: David Corn, “Bill Bradley: Can He Get Into the Game?” The Nation, June 17, 1999; “Al Gore: Top Industries,” Center for Responsive Politics; “Bill Bradley’s Skeleton Closet,” Real People for Real Change; “Bradley and Gore Nearly Even in Fundraising Efforts; Bush Outpaces GOP Field,” CNN, January 31, 2000; Richard L. Berke, “The 2000 Campaign: The Overview; Gore and Bush Triumph Nationwide, Putting Nominations in Their Grasp,” The New York Times, March 8, 2000; Leslie Wayne, “The 2000 Campaign: The End; Forbes Spent Millions, But for Little Gain,” The New York Times, February 10, 2000; “George W. Bush,” Center for Responsive Politics; “President-Elect George W. Bush — Top Fundraisers,” Center for Responsive Politics; “George W. Bush,”, Online NewsHour, PBS, April 27, 2000; Don Van Natta, Jr., “The 2000 Campaign: The Money; A Daunting Edge in Campaign Cash Narrows for Bush,” The New York Times, February 25, 2000; David von Drehle and Dan Balz, “Bush, McCain Clash in Debate; Campaign Finance, Taxes Draw Fire in Spirited Forum,” The Washington Post, January 7, 2000; Susan B. Glasser and Dan Balz, “McCain Defends FCC Letter,” The Washington Post, January 6, 2000; Elaine S. Povich, “Campaign 2000: Bush, McCain in S.C.,” Newsday, February 3, 2000; Ruth Marcus, “Costliest Race Nears End; Bush, Gore Running Close; U.S. Campaigns Fuel $3 Billion in Spending,” The Washington Post, November 6, 2000; “Brennan Center: 2000 Presidential Race First in Modern History Where Political Parties Spend More on TV Ads Than Candidates,” U.S. Newswire, December 11, 2000; “2000 Presidential Election Results,” David Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections; Janet Wells, “Road to the White House,” San Francisco Chronicle, December 14, 2000.

Previous year: 1975
Previous election year: 1996 - Clinton vs. Dole
Next election year: 2004 - Bush vs. Kerry


