Do elections efficiently aggregate politicians' policy-relevant private information? This paper argues that politicians' office motivation is an obstacle. In a two-candidate Hotelling-Downs model in which each candidate has socially-valuable policy information, we establish that equilibrium welfare is at best what can be obtained by disregarding one politician's information. We also find that for canonical information structures, politicians have an incentive to ``anti-pander'', i.e., to overreact to their information. Some degree of pandering -- underreacting to information -- would be socially beneficial.