In March 2018, self-funded billionaire JB Pritzker secured the Democratic party nomination for the Illinois gubernatorial race. He went on to win the general election in a landslide. The election was the most expensive governor’s race in U.S. history.

Did Pritzker buy his way to victory? Probably not in the general election. His incumbent opponent nearly lost the Republican primary and was ranked as the third least popular governor in the country in 2018. However, in the primary, Pritzker spent $68.3 million to win 45.2% of the vote. His second-place opponent, Daniel Biss, spent $7.2 million and won 26.6 % of the vote.

The data tells only part of the story, so it is difficult to tell whether Pritzker could have won without his wealth. Regardless, the idea that Pritzker may have bought the election is disconcerting.

However, there is a candidate today for whom enough data exists to suggest that, if they win, it means that they bought the election. This candidate is running for president with a completely self-funded campaign. His name is Michael Bloomberg.

The conditions of the race indicate that if Bloomberg spent the same amount of money as Bernie Sanders, it would be impossible for him to secure the nomination. If Bloomberg wins, it would solely be by virtue of his ability to outspend his opponents. It would be a massive step toward plutocracy in America. Whether Democratic voters support single-payer healthcare, gun buyback programs, Warren or Biden, a Bloomberg victory is the worst-case scenario for everyone involved in American politics.

Bloomberg can only win by massively outspending his opponents. Compare his finances with other Democrats. He spent $221 million in the last period. Compare that to the second and third highest campaign spenders: Tom Steyer at $52.9 million and Bernie Sanders at $26.5 million. Bloomberg has a net worth of $55.4 billion to tap into for the duration of the race. He has the ability to outspend all the other candidates combined.

Like Pritzker, the fact that Bloomberg spends a lot of money is not enough proof to argue that it would be the dominant source of strength for his campaign. But the fact that Bloomberg has underperformed in all non-financially related categories of campaigning indicates that he is supposed to lose otherwise.

For example, Bloomberg entered the race unusually late. Bloomberg declared his run for presidency in late November of 2019. Compare this to Sanders, Klobuchar and Warren who declared in February, and Biden and Buttigieg in April. This put him at such a disadvantage that he chose to not even campaign in the early states.

Bloomberg has opted to go with the unusual strategy of focusing on the delegate-rich states up for grabs on Super Tuesday. He has spent $183 million on TV ads across the country and $63.2 million on California alone. He hopes that Super Tuesday will bring a windfall of delegates, potentially making him a top contender for the nomination.

Another disadvantage for Bloomberg is his debate presence and performance. He has only had the opportunity to debate in the last two out of 10 debates. Most analysts would also agree that he got demolished in the Nevada debate and performed average in South Carolina. Either way, there is not much from the debates that indicate that he should receive widespread support.

What about media coverage? Again, due to his late arrival, it does not make sense that a couple of months of media coverage should give him an equivalent level of publicity as the other candidates. He is also not a particularly interesting character like Donald Trump, who received what is estimated to be $2 billion of free media coverage during the 2016 race.

What about Bloomberg’s policies? He sells himself as a moderate in a Democratic field that already has three top-tier moderate candidates. Bloomberg’s only competitive advantage is that he has large sums of money and that he is specifically selling himself as someone who can beat Donald Trump. The ability to beat Trump is the number-one concern for Democratic voters, and Bloomberg has the cash to let people know that he can win.

Perhaps Bloomberg has good intentions. Maybe he would make a good president. However, all indicators suggest that it should be impossible for Bloomberg to win without his extreme wealth. If he wins, it would only be due to his money, and that is problematic for democracy.

David is a senior in LAS. 

[email protected]