Why Do Incumbents Increase Incumbency Advantage?

victory cannot be attributed to his high levels of campaign spending. Perhaps spending such a large amount of money on his campaign did impact the election outcome, but his campaign spending was enabled and influenced by his incumbency. In other words, since Walker’s spending was caused by his incumbency status, the incumbency advantage was what ultimately influenced the outcome of the 2012 recall election. Since incumbents have better access to financial resources, many good quality challengers refrain from participating in closed elections, since doing so comes with high costs and a low likelihood of winning; therefore, perpetuating and reinforcing the incumbency advantage’s supremacy over campaign spending (Levitt and Wikfram 57). Since the quality of challengers facing incumbents is decreasing, the likelihood that an incumbent will lose an election also decreases. Incumbents are not only better equipped for participating in an election, but they are also being faced against weaker challengers. This facilitates an incumbent’s victory, increasing the incumbency advantage’s significance and making it more determinative and influential in …show more content…
Soft money is money that is donated to political parties for general political activities rather than to a specific candidate, exempting these donations from legal regulations that limit campaign contributions (“soft money”). Since soft money is not regulated, those making monetary contributions for campaigns through political parties can donate as much money as they want. In addition to soft money, there is hard money, which is money given directly to a candidate to help fund their campaign (“hard money”). Although one is regulated, while the other is not, they are both essential in financing the campaigns of electoral