Madison - The economics of Wisconsin politics is as screwed up as the economics of major league baseball, with current office holders and favored insiders virtually assured of victory while their rivals are out of contention due to the grotesque imbalance in financial resources, a new Wisconsin Democracy Campaign analysis shows.

Legislative candidates who spent more than their opponents won 83 percent of the contested races between major party candidates in last fall's elections, spending a record $4.1 million or 69 percent more than the $2.4 million spent by losing candidates, according to the Democracy Campaign analysis.

"Even before the season starts, everyone knows that only the Yankees, Braves and a handful of other teams have any hope of making it to the World Series. The rest are already mathematically eliminated because their payrolls don't allow them to compete," said WDC executive director Mike McCabe, a long suffering but diehard Chicago Cubs fan. "The economics of our election campaigns is every bit as bad. There is nothing remotely resembling a level playing field."

The huge financial advantage held by those in power explains their resistance to campaign finance reform, McCabe said.

"The George Steinbrenners and Ted Turners of the baseball world don't want to change a thing because the current economic structure in their sport makes them almost impossible to beat. It's the same with the Scott Jensens and Chuck Chvalas in state politics. They haven't allowed any changes, either," McCabe said. "But unless there are changes, economics will kill baseball and campaign finances will kill democracy."

A comparison to previous elections shows that the spending gap between winners and losers is widening. The $4.1 million spent by winning candidates in 2000 was 58 percent higher than the $2.6 million spent by winning candidates in 1998 when winners outspent losers by 38 percent.

In the Senate, 11 of 16 races in the 2000 general election were contested by major party candidates. In nine of those contested races the winner substantially outspent the loser, by 35 percent to 2,813 percent (Table 1). In the 30th and 32nd District races where the lower-spending Democratic candidates won, the candidates benefited from a substantial amount of independent spending by special interests. The special interest spending exceeded what both of the candidates spent in the 32nd District race between Democrat Mark Meyer and Republican Dan Kapanke, and exceeded what Democratic challenger Dave Hansen spent to win the 30th District race.

It's unknown how much was spent in those races by issue ad groups on both sides. These groups are not required to report their campaign activities.

In the Assembly, 61 of 99 races were contested and the biggest spender won 51 - or 84 percent - of those contested races. In those races, the losing candidate was outspent from 6 percent to 14,282% percent (Table 2). An analysis of the 10 races that the lower-spending candidate won shows that the winner was an incumbent and, in most cases, located in a "safe" district that traditionally supports that incumbent's political party.