A closer parallel to Massachusetts’s upcoming election may be the last special election for Congress that was held here — in 1991, when the death of Silvio Conte left an open seat in the First Congressional District. And where the race for the Ninth is concerned, that election was notable not so much for its turnout (24 percent, not so bad on a day with rain and no other races) as for the role the abortion issue played. Then–state senator John Olver of Amherst, who was pro-choice, and State Senator Linda Melconian of West Springfield, who was pro-life, emerged as the leading candidates in a field of eight Democrats. Late in the race, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) paid for television and radio advertising that targeted Melconian’s stance. Observers believed the ads gave a crucial late-campaign boost to Olver, who went on to win. Indeed, following Olver’s victory, the Boston Globe quoted NARAL executive director Kate Michelman as calling the win “proof that choice is a powerful issue at the polls.” She added, “NARAL is proud to have played a major role in defeating a front-running anti-choice candidate.”

In the Ninth, Jacques will be seen as the most solidly pro-choice candidate if she runs, but Joyce and Pacheco also favor Roe v. Wade. Lynch, meanwhile, is the only pro-life candidate in the race. Melissa Kogut, the executive director of the local branch of NARAL, says her group has not yet decided which candidate it will back — if any. Although the national chapter of NARAL has begun running television ads on local television to raise awareness about abortion, Kogut says the timing of the ads is not tied to the congressional race.

ALL THE candidates know that money — both money they raise themselves and the outside help they get from interest groups — will help determine whether they have a chance, mainly because it guarantees TV face time. Quite simply, television means the difference between voters’ knowing who the candidate is and drawing a blank in the voting booth. And television time is expensive. Just one week of TV advertising can cost roughly $200,000 or more. Such exorbitant expenses explain why issue ads have become so important: they can do a lot of damage to an opponent — free of charge to the candidate.

So far, even the most successful candidates are far from where they need to be in the money chase. Campaign-finance reports won’t be filed until July 31, but this past Monday, July 9, the Boston Globe reported that the Joyce campaign had raised $453,350 by the end of June, and that Lynch had taken in only $220,000. (Interestingly, sources partial to Lynch say his campaign raised $80,000 of this total after the Globe published negative pieces on him.) Figures were not available from Pacheco or Jacques. Jacques, who wants to raise $800,000, told the Phoenix that money and organizational support are among the factors she is currently evaluating. “I have to assess at what point do ... phone calls and letters and notes translate into support that will get me elected or just merely good wishes,” she says.

Lynch, who (along with his opponents) brushes off the suggestion that he can win the race simply by rallying his South Boston base, will need lots of money to raise his visibility outside of Southie. He says he’s focusing on suburban towns such as Dedham, Norwood, and Braintree. But he can’t knock on every suburban door in the district to introduce himself to voters. He’ll need to buy television, radio, and newspaper ads to do that. (In the meantime, Lynch is holding a fundraiser tonight, July 12, at Anthony’s Pier Four — not just to raise money, but also to rally his base and to demonstrate that he has support from relatively ordinary donors. The minimum donation will be $100.)

Meanwhile, Lynch stands to benefit if Jacques enters the race and splits the progressive vote with Joyce. Pro-choice and urban gay and lesbian voters had been gravitating to Joyce, but many motivated activists might abandon him for Jacques if they got the chance. Still, it’s difficult to imagine that the average voter would do so, and it’s hard not to see Joyce’s recent fundraising push as a warning shot to Jacques to stay out of the race.

But even if the progressive vote remains united, Lynch has recovered from a string of negative stories about his finances — and even his past arrests — and is building a core of animated voters to support him in big numbers. Lynch’s opponents may argue that without support throughout the suburbs, he cannot win. Yet without a carpet-bombing campaign of television issue ads from one of his opponents (abortion seems to be the issue to focus on), it seems unlikely that today’s indifferent voters will turn out in numbers high enough to guarantee victory to anyone else.

Seth Gitell can be reached at sgitell[a]phx.com.