The results of the 1990 elections looked rather like late night TV reruns—it felt like we had seen this show before. In a sense, we had. Once again, over 90% of House incumbents running for reelection were successful. In the Senate, only one incumbent was defeated for reelection (which unique race in Minnesota the author had the good fortune—and, he would like to think, the excellent foresight—to be involved with in a central way). And once again, the monetary advantage held by incumbents was overwhelming and was apparently a major factor in the results.

This continued pattern was widely noted—and lamented—in the news media, as it had been after the 1988 election. A Los Angeles Times article was typical. The Times concluded, “With a few notable exceptions, the results … reinforced the basic tenet of American politics that well-financed incumbents are almost impossible to beat” (Fritz, Morris, 1990, p. A25). And, as the Times and many other news organs noted, that sky-high reelection rate came in a year supposedly awash in anti-incumbent sentiment after the fiasco of the budget process and other developments. The L.A. Times appropriately quoted Ellen Miller of the Center for Responsive Politics to the effect that the “big story of this election was that incumbents were insulated by money, in spite of the incredible frustration that many voters felt” (Fritz, Morris, 1990, p. A25).