Most Recent Posts

With 435 seats up for grabs every two years, House candidates typically raise more money overall than those running for the Senate, where only about one-third of the chamber's 100 seats are contested every two years.

But according to the Center for Responsive Politics, the fundraising gap is especially wide this year: Data show that House candidates have raised more than twice as much as Senate hopefuls at this point in the election cycle. The last time the discrepancy was this pronounced was in 2008, and before that, in 2002.

So far in the 2013-14 cycle, the 866 candidates for the U.S. House have raised $404 million in individual and political action committee donations. The 145 Senate candidates have raised $204 million.

Why the wider-than-usual disparity? It's still early in the campaign year, so there's no single answer. But there are lots of clues.

Here are a few possible explanations:

There were six special elections in 2013 for House seats and two Senate special elections. The House races included a high-profile matchup in South Carolina won by former GOP Gov. Mark Sanford, whose Democratic opponent was Elizabeth Colbert-Busch, the sister of popular comedian Stephen Colbert. In the Senate, Democrat Cory Booker cruised to victory in New Jersey, and Democrat Ed Markey won in Massachusetts.

So far, the election cycle hasn't seen huge-money, self-funded Senate candidates — like Connecticut Republican Linda McMahon, who spent about $100 million of her own money for losing Senate efforts in 2010 and 2012. Republicans David Perdue in Georgia and Terri Lynn Land in Michigan, for example, have each put about $1.6 million of their own money into their current Senate campaigns. But those numbers pale in comparison to the McMahon-level self-financing.

The Senate race map may also be playing a role. In 2010, more than $50 million was raised in three separate Senate races alone — California among them. But this time around, in the four most populous states — New York, California, Texas, and Florida (all home to lots of expensive media markets) — only one of the eight Senate seats is being contested: Republican John Cornyn is running for re-election in Texas.

Sarah Bryner, CRP's research director, notes that while House fundraising is far outpacing that for the Senate, the overall money flowing to individual campaigns continues to shrink as a result of the Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United campaign finance decision.

That ruling prohibited restrictions on political spending by corporations, associations and labor unions.

"There's now three times as much in independent expenditures than there were at this point in 2010," Bryner says. "Since Citizens United, a lot of money that would have previously gone to the party and to candidates is going to outside spending groups."

Secretary of State John Kerry is continuing a push to move climate change to the top of the global agenda, telling an audience in the archipelago nation of Indonesia that rising global temperatures and sea levels could threaten their "entire way of life."

"When I think about the array of global climate, of the global threats, think about this: terrorism, epidemics, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction," Kerry said in a speech to students in the capital, Jakarta. "All challenges that know no borders. The reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them."

He stressed that 97 percent of scientist agree that climate change is "unequivocal" and that those people who deny the facts "are simply burying their heads in the sand."

"Because of climate change, it's no secret that today Indonesia is ... one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth," Kerry said.

"It's not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk," he added.

Reuters says:

"Kerry derided skeptics of the view that human activity causes global warming as 'shoddy scientists' and 'extreme ideologues' and he said big companies and special interests should not be allowed to 'hijack' the climate debate.

"Kerry, who faces a politically tricky decision at home on whether to allow Canada's TransCanada Corp to build the Keystone XL pipeline despite the opposition of environmental groups, had little patience for such skeptics in his speech."

Whatever you already believed about raising the federal minimum wage, you now have more ammo for your argument, thanks to a report released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, titled "The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income."

Yes, you're right: raising the wage in steps to $10.10 an hour by 2016 would push employers to cut jobs - about 500,000 of them, says the CBO, the non-partisan research arm of Congress.

And yes, you're right: the proposed raise would lift nearly a million Americans out of poverty and put billions into the wallets of workers who are eager to spend, the CBO says.

And yes, liberals and conservatives are scrambling to spotlight passages of the report that support their respective political positions.

The White House jumped on the CBO's conclusion that if Congress were to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10, then 16.5 million low-wage workers would get bigger paychecks and could help stimulate slack consumer demand.

"It raises incomes and reduces poverty," Jason Furman, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said on a phone call with journalists.

But while Furman was highlighting the positives, Republicans were pointing to the CBO's conclusion that a $10.10 wage would cause business owners to eliminate about 500,000 jobs to save on labor costs.

"With unemployment Americans' top concern, our focus should be creating — not destroying — jobs for those who need them most," Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.

Democrats are calling a wage hike one of their top priorities. And polls consistently show the great majority of Americans support that position. Already, 21 states and many cities have imposed higher minimum wages – even as Congress holds the federal wage at the level last increased in July 2009.

But Republican members of Congress say a higher minimum wage would hurt small businesses and eliminate jobs for those who need them most, namely the lowest-skilled workers.

Here are some of the pluses and minuses of a wage hike, as the CBO sees it:

Positive Impacts of a Higher Wage

- 16.5 million people earning less than $10.10 would get a raise. And those already getting $10.10 probably would get raises, too, from a ripple effect.

- After taking into account jobs cut and raises paid out, real income would rise overall by $2 billion.

- The wage boost would allow millions of workers to spend more, boosting demand for goods and services and stimulating growth.

- About 900,000 people would be lifted out of poverty.

Negative Impacts of a Higher Wage

- Roughly 500,000 people would lose their jobs as employers cut payrolls to cope with higher labor costs.

- The federal budget would feel a pinch as the government raises wages for hourly employees. And the government may have to pay more for goods and services as suppliers charge higher prices to adjust to higher wages.

- Consumers could face rising prices as employers pass along some of their increased labor costs.

Whatever you already believed about raising the federal minimum wage, you now have more ammo for your argument, thanks to a report released Tuesday by the Congressional Budget Office, titled "The Effects of a Minimum-Wage Increase on Employment and Family Income."

Yes, you're right: Raising the wage in steps to $10.10 an hour by 2016 would push employers to cut jobs — about 500,000 of them, says the CBO, the nonpartisan research arm of Congress.

And yes, you're right: The proposed raise would lift nearly 1 million Americans out of poverty and put billions into the wallets of workers who are eager to spend, the CBO says.

And yes, liberals and conservatives are scrambling to spotlight passages of the report that support their respective political positions.

The White House jumped on the CBO's conclusion that if Congress were to raise the federal minimum wage from $7.25 an hour to $10.10, then 16.5 million low-wage workers would get bigger paychecks and could help stimulate slack consumer demand.

"It raises incomes and reduces poverty," Jason Furman, chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, said on a phone call with journalists.

But while Furman was highlighting the positives, Republicans were pointing to the CBO's conclusion that a $10.10 wage would cause business owners to eliminate about 500,000 jobs to save on labor costs.

"With unemployment Americans' top concern, our focus should be creating — not destroying — jobs for those who need them most," Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in a statement.

Democrats are calling a wage hike one of their top priorities. And polls consistently show the great majority of Americans support that position. Already, 21 states and many cities have imposed higher minimum wages – even as Congress holds the federal wage at the level last increased in July 2009.

But Republican members of Congress say a higher minimum wage would hurt small businesses and eliminate jobs for those who need them most, namely the lowest-skilled workers.

Here are some of the pluses and minuses of a wage hike, as the CBO sees it:

Positive Impacts of a Higher Wage

- 16.5 million people earning less than $10.10 would get a raise. And those already getting $10.10 probably would get raises, too, from a ripple effect.

- After taking into account jobs cut and raises paid out, real income would rise overall by $2 billion.

- The wage boost would allow millions of workers to spend more, boosting demand for goods and services and stimulating growth.

- About 900,000 people would be lifted out of poverty.

Negative Impacts of a Higher Wage

- Roughly 500,000 people would lose their jobs as employers cut payrolls to cope with higher labor costs.

- The federal budget would feel a pinch as the government raises wages for hourly employees. And the government may have to pay more for goods and services as suppliers charge higher prices to adjust to higher wages.

- Consumers could face rising prices as employers pass along some of their increased labor costs.