The political story in the July 16 Butler Eagle, updating the fundraising status of incumbent Democratic U.S. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper and Republican challenger Mike Kelly of Butler was troubling. And it should be trouble to both Democrats and Republicans.

The fact that Dahlkemper has 10 times as much money to retain her 3rd District seat in Congress as her challenger has to spend is evidence of the unhealthy advantage that incumbents enjoy.

Granted, money is not everything in politics. Sometimes a particularly strong candidate can beat the odds and sometimes a political wave sweeps the country, forcing many incumbents out of office in the process. But, generally, the money-leader tends to win.

It's well accepted that incumbents have many advantages over challengers. Incumbents generally have better name recognition and they can make news by giving speeches or boast about the federal tax money they bring home to their district. They have taxpayer-funded staffs to send out daily e-mails and taxpayer-funded newsletters telling voters about the wonderful things they do.

Incumbents also have special-interest groups giving them money to influence their votes. And, in many cases, they even have national politicians giving them money to help one party retain or regain control of Congress.

All of this helps Dahlkemper, and hurts Kelly.

This same scenario has existed where the incumbent is a Republican and the challenger is a Democrat. It's troubling regardless of the party affiliations of the candidates.

The problem might be worse than usual in the Dahlkemper vs. Kelly race. Off-year elections generally favor the party out of power, and therefore, Republicans are expected to regain some seats in Congress, possibly shifting the control of the House.

For that reason, Democratic party leaders are giving campaign money to incumbent Democrats, particularly freshmen lawmakers who are considered to be vulnerable. And most observers say that Dahlkemper falls into that category. She represents a fairly conservative district, one that had sent several Republicans to Congress before Dahlkemper.

For these reasons, Dahlkemper's latest campaign report says she has $1.1 million to spend in the election, while Kelly has $103,507. Both those numbers will change, however.

While much of Kelly's campaign is self-financed, Dahlkemper has received money from national groups politically aligned with Democrats, including political action committee (PAC) money unions in California and Washington, D.C. She also has received money from U.S. Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., as well as other national politicians.

Kelly's campaign manager Josh Snyder suggested it was "Speaker Pelosi's dialing for dollars" funding Dahlkemper's campaign, with national Democratics providing lots of money. Dahlkemper's staffers reply that her campaign chest has grown larger because she had no primary challenger.

But looking at the incumbent's contributors raises a question — do these people know about or care about issues in Western Pennsylvania? It's more likely they just want to preserve a Democratic seat in Congress.

The same would be true if the party affiliations were reversed. Both parties do engage in this, but that doesn't make it right.

Incumbents across the country tend to get re-elected at rates well above 90 percent. Unless there is a national wave against one party — usually the party in power, such as the anti-Bush, anti-Republican movement in 2010 that saw Dahlkemper and many other Democrats swept into Washington along with President Barack Obama. But, in a normal election year, it's rare to see incumbents lose.

There's no easy solution to incumbents' money advantages and re-election rates. But it's not good for democracy.