* And a study of the 2008 election results shows that self-funding candidates don’t do well at all…

49 Congressional candidates spend $500,000 of their own money, and of them, only 6 House candidates and 1 Senate candidate won.

Perhaps the saddest case of this was Sandy Treadwell, who ran against Kirsten Gillibrand in NY-20. Treadwell poured in at least $5.9 million of his own money. (Gillibrand spent $3.6 million, but only $250 of that was her own money.) The return on Treadwell’s investment: priceless. If by ‘priceless,’ you mean losing to Gillibrand by a 23-point margin.

The Illinois GOP might take that as a broad hint to stop recruiting those self-funders.

As usual Miller is spot on.  If you can’t convince your people and your party to support your campaign, it’s a good hint that you’re not a viable candidate.

Too often wealthy candidates are surrounded with people afraid to tell them bad news, or the egos of the wealthy are spurred on by staffers who want to keep getting a check.  And when you’re many months, hundreds of hours, and tens of thousands of dollars in to a campaign, its hard to recognize sunk costs, and hard to tell when to stop.

This is also a good sign for our democracy.  Folk’s don’t like it when it looks like you’re just buyin’ it.  An interesting question, would more aggressive federal campaign finance reform reverse this trend?  It’s really hard concoct campaign finance legislation that could constitutionally limit the ability of a candidate to spend their own money on their campaign.  Does limiting PACs, lobbyists, and contribution amounts give self-financed candidates an unfair advantage?