Does money buy elections?

[Terr]

tl;dr: the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all

This is from Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt; Stephen J. Dubner

Of all the truisms about politics, one is held to be truer than the rest: money buys elections. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Michael Bloomberg, Jon Corzine—these are but a few recent, dramatic examples of the truism at work. (Disregard for a moment the contrary examples of Steve Forbes, Michael Huffington, and especially Thomas Golisano, who over the course of three gubernatorial elections in New York spent $93 million of his own money and won 4 percent, 8 percent, and 14 percent, respectively, of the vote.) Most people would agree that money has an undue influence on elections and that far too much money is spent on political campaigns.

Indeed, election data show it is true that the candidate who spends more money in a campaign usually wins. But is money the cause of the victory?

[...]

Here’s the surprise: the amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent. What really matters for a political candidate is not how much you spend; what matters is who you are. (The same could be said—and will be said, in chapter 5—about parents.) Some politicians are inherently attractive to voters and others simply aren’t, and no amount of money can do much about it. (Messrs. Forbes, Huffington, and Golisano already know this, of course.)

More at Google Books. (http://books.google.com/books?id=wNPnl5zYA-cC&pg=PT19&&hl=en&ei=bTfkTunnFare0QGYwtjdBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

[samclem]

Certainly money influences elections. Does it buy it. It could, but most time it doesn't. IMHO.

[John Mace]

If it can't buy love, I don't see why it can buy an election.

To the OP: Can you clarify what are your own words and what are your quoting from Freakonomics? And how did they collect their data?

[Terr]

Certainly money influences elections. Does it buy it. It could, but most time it doesn't. IMHO.That's the point of the research in the OP - the influence of money on elections (beyond a minimum amount that is needed to make the candidate's name known I presume) is miniscule.

[Terr]

If it can't buy love, I don't see why it can buy an election.

To the OP: Can you clarify what are your own words and what are your quoting from Freakonomics? And how did they collect their data?

After the first two lines in the OP, the rest is from "Freakonomics".

As for the data - don't know the exact source. Here is a bit from an article about Levitt:

Sometimes he would begin with a question. Sometimes it was a set of data that caught his eye. He spent one entire summer typing into his computer the results of years’ worth of Congressional elections. (Today, with so much information so easily available on the Internet, Levitt complains that he can’t get his students to input data at all.) All he had was a vague curiosity about why incumbents were so often re-elected.

Then he happened upon a political-science book whose authors claimed that money wins elections, period. “They were trying to explain election outcomes as a function of campaign expenditures,” he recalls, “completely ignoring the fact that contributors will only give money to challengers when they have a realistic chance of winning, and incumbents only spend a lot when they have a chance of losing. They convinced themselves this was the causal story even though it’s so obvious in retrospect that it’s a spurious effect.”

Obvious, at least, to Levitt. Within five minutes, he had a vision of the paper he would write. “It came to me,” he says, “in full bloom.”

The problem was that his data couldn’t tell him who was a good candidate and who wasn’t. It was therefore impossible to tease out the effect of the money. As with the police/crime rate puzzle, he had to trick the data.

Because he himself had typed in the data, he had noticed something: often, the same two candidates faced each other multiple times. By analyzing the data from only those elections, Levitt was able to find a true result. His conclusion: campaign money has about one-tenth the impact as was commonly accepted.

[Marley23]

Terr, I've shortened the quote you posted. We take pains to respect copyright here, and it was simply too long. If you can link to the article or a summary, that would be better.

[Terr]

Terr, I've shortened the quote you posted. We take pains to respect copyright here, and it was simply too long. If you can link to the article or a summary, that would be better.

Here's a link: http://books.google.com/books?id=wNPnl5zYA-cC&pg=PT19&&hl=en&ei=bTfkTunnFare0QGYwtjdBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&f=false - starting halfway down the page

[Marley23]

Here's a link: http://books.google.com/books?id=wNPnl5zYA-cC&pg=PT19&&hl=en&ei=bTfkTunnFare0QGYwtjdBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&f=false - starting halfway down the page
Great. I've added the link to your OP.

[msmith537]

Ask steve forbes or ross perot. You certainly need money to get your message out there. But if that message doesn't resonate with people it doesn't matter if you are a billionare

[Evil Captor]

I fervently wish to believe you Terr, but I do not. Conservatives claiming that money does not buy elections is an innately suspicious thing, and distinctly counterintuitive.

[Terr]

I fervently wish to believe you Terr, but I do not. Conservatives claiming that money does not buy elections is an innately suspicious thing, and distinctly counterintuitive.This was not written by me. The research was done by Dr. Levitt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Levitt) - "Winner of the 2004 John Bates Clark Medal, he is currently the William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago, director of the Becker Center on Chicago Price Theory at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business." - and as far as I know, not a conservative.

[Terr]

Here is another interesting article by another economist:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CampaignFinance.html

Every two years, public-interest groups and media pundits lament the fact that winning candidates typically far outspend their rivals. They infer from this that campaign spending drives electoral results. Most systematic studies, however, find no effect of marginal campaign spending on the electoral success of candidates.
...
Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.
...
Political and legal decision makers have for too long considered the role of money in politics to be self-evident; this has led to a widespread and pervasive misunderstanding of the likely costs and benefits of campaign finance reform proposals. But political institutions are no less subject to scientific inquiry than are social or economic institutions. The consensus among academic researchers is that money is far less important in determining either election or policy outcomes than conventional wisdom holds it to be. Consequently, the benefits of campaign finance reforms have also been exaggerated.

[Terr]

:) I have nothing better to do, sitting up seeing if my 6-months-old will wake up and cry - so I found another fun paper: http://arpejournal.com/ARPEvolume7number1-2/Gius.pdf

This one, apart from claiming that "spending by either candidate has a minimal effect on the vote share obtained", also finds that incumbent campaign spending has a *negative* effect on the vote he gets and "an incumbent’s best political strategy may be too (sic) lay low and not advertise very much is at all".

[BeaMyra]

I think the question shouldn't be can you buy an election. It should be phrased as does EXTRA money help in an election. Certainly you need a great deal of money just to campaign and get your message out.

But the real question is does pumping any more money into that message help once you get over that first rung. And the answer to that seems to be no

[2sense]

If money means little in elections and candidates can no longer keep unspent campaing contributions then why do politicians spend so much of their time raising money for their reelection campaigns?

[Little Nemo]

If it can't buy love, I don't see why it can buy an election.But money can influence love also.

[newcomer]

But money can influence love also. Money is the only real thing in any loving relationship. And in politics, too. Everything else is "message resonating with people".

God, I love that expression so much I'll paste it again - a message that resonates with people.

Think about it, Bush W. had a message that resonated with people and that's how he became POTUS. Twice!

I had no idea that after all what's happening right in front of people's eyes and ears someone can still be so mentally removed from reality to claim that money and elections are independent of each other, that there is no clear functional relationship between the two. Or, just because you call it lobbying there is no corruption. Or, just because you call it "telling the truth" there is no pandering.

[septimus]

Even conceding that campaign funding has relatively small effect on election outcomes does not mean such money is not a pernicious influence. Politicians like big campaign budgets for other reasons than winning; for example it gives means for kickbacks or graft.

Campaign contributions influence a politician's policies once elected. And big money has a big effect on the direction of political debate.

[Little Nemo]

Money is the only real thing in any loving relationship. And in politics, too. Everything else is "message resonating with people".

God, I love that expression so much I'll paste it again - a message that resonates with people.

Think about it, Bush W. had a message that resonated with people and that's how he became POTUS. Twice!

I had no idea that after all what's happening right in front of people's eyes and ears someone can still be so mentally removed from reality to claim that money and elections are independent of each other, that there is no clear functional relationship between the two. Or, just because you call it lobbying there is no corruption. Or, just because you call it "telling the truth" there is no pandering.Remember, just because you're cynical, it doesn't mean you're right.

[Terr]

Campaign contributions influence a politician's policies once elected. And big money has a big effect on the direction of political debate.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CampaignFinance.html

Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.4 Of course, if candidates choose their policy positions in anticipation of a subsequent payoff in campaign contributions, there would be no real distinction between accepting bribes and accepting contributions from like-minded voters. However, studies of legislative behavior indicate that the most important determinants of an incumbent’s voting record are constituent interests, party, and personal ideology. In election years, constituent interests become more important than in nonelection years, but overall, these three factors explain nearly all of the variation in incumbents’ voting records.

... read more

[Annie-Xmas]

[Emily Latilla voice}

Since drugs like Viagra became available.....

What? Oh. Never mind.

[/Emily Latilla voice]

[Untoward_Parable]

To actually answer this question you have to do a lot more than find anomalies where one person spent more than the other and lost. It's a lot of data and you have to follow the steps that lead up to finally getting on the ballot, getting into politics in the first place, outside spending that effects elections but isn't spent by the candidates campaigns, on and on.

People will overwhelmingly not try to find the nuance however, they will accept details that support what they want to believe and dismiss those that don't, overwiegh, underweigh and on and on.

[Terr]

To actually answer this question you have to do a lot more than find anomalies where one person spent more than the other and lost. Read the studies I linked to. That is not what they were doing.

[GIGObuster]

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CampaignFinance.html

... read more
Don't mind if I do.

Nevertheless, no serious scholar would argue that campaign spending is unimportant. These findings do not imply that anyone running for elective office would do as well (in terms of vote share) by not spending several million dollars. Instead, the appropriate conclusion is that in the vast majority of political contests, the identity of the victor would not be different had any one candidate spent a few hundred thousand dollars more (or less).


Incidentally, I do not trust Levitt that much after his geoengineering fiasco.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/10/why-levitt-and-dubner-like-geo-engineering-and-why-they-are-wrong/

[Voyager]

I don't think Arnold won the recall election because of money - he was the guy with name recognition that money can't buy in a cast of thousands.
And more recently, ask Meg Whitman about money buying elections.

As for Leavitt, let's just say that my sources tell me that his rep amongst the U of C economics faculty is not the highest. He mostly uses studies by other people without an awful lot of indication that he didn't do the work, unlike other, similar writers. Still, he is probably more or less right about this one.

[Terr]

Don't mind if I do.
Of course campaign spending is important. After all, you want voters to know your name and be aware of your message. What the papers are saying is that past a certain threshold, past the "minimum" if you will, further spending hits diminishing returns and in some cases even negative returns.
Incidentally, I do not trust Levitt that much after his geoengineering fiasco.That's irrelevant to the study that I cited. He lays out his argumentation. If you have a problem with it, point it out.

[GIGObuster]

Of course campaign spending is important. After all, you want voters to know your name and be aware of your message. What the papers are saying is that past a certain threshold, past the "minimum" if you will, further spending hits diminishing returns and in some cases even negative returns.

The problem is that many are indeed out of that minimum.


That's irrelevant to the study that I cited. He lays out his argumentation. If you have a problem with it, point it out.

And the research of Levitt was pointed out by the reviewer that I read more of thanks to your advice. Once the obvious point that there is indeed a lot that is missed from the study was pointed out, it is pertinent to mention also that guys like Levitt also have a history of ignoring contradictory evidence in the way to a good line or talking point.

[newcomer]

Remember, just because you're cynical, it doesn't mean you're right. And same goes for you - pointing that out doesn't demonstrate I'm wrong.

[Terr]

The problem is that many are indeed out of that minimum.Sorry, don't understand what you're saying.

[Frank]

Is this study solely based on money spent by the candidate's campaign, or does it also include soft money, PACs, corporate and union spending, and so on?

[Ibn Warraq]

And the research of Levitt was pointed out by the reviewer that I read more of thanks to your advice. Once the obvious point that there is indeed a lot that is missed from the study was pointed out, it is pertinent to mention also that guys like Levitt also have a history of ignoring contradictory evidence in the way to a good line or talking point.

What were the flaws in Levitt's study regarding the financing of campaigns?

Also what makes you disagree with it other than that you didn't like the results it produced?

Thanks

[Terr]

Is this study solely based on money spent by the candidate's campaign, or does it also include soft money, PACs, corporate and union spending, and so on?

I am pretty sure it was based on candidate's spending only. But that is sufficient, unless you think that soft money, PACs, etc. are a lot more efficient in their spending than the candidate is.

[Frank]

I am pretty sure it was based on candidate's spending only. But that is sufficient, unless you think that soft money, PACs, etc. are a lot more efficient in their spending than the candidate is.
I think that focusing only on one source of election spending is not an adequate study.

[Lobohan]

I am pretty sure it was based on candidate's spending only. But that is sufficient, unless you think that soft money, PACs, etc. are a lot more efficient in their spending than the candidate is.I'm a candidate. I spend 1 million dollars. PACs supporting me spend 50 million dollars.

My opponent spends 2 million of her campaign's money. PACs spend 10 million on her.

According to you, if I win, I spent less than her. I think you're assuming that the PAC and other soft monies are distributed evenly. I'd need to see a cite for that.

[Terr]

I think that focusing only on one source of election spending is not an adequate study.
If more spending by the candidate does not seem to improve his election chances, why would you think that more third party spending would?

[Lobohan]

If more spending by the candidate does not seem to improve his election chances, why would you think that more third party spending would?Because third party spending distorts the amount that the candidates spend. It might be that people who get tons of soft money don't spend as much of their personal warchest.

[Terr]

I'm a candidate. I spend 1 million dollars. PACs supporting me spend 50 million dollars.

My opponent spends 2 million of her campaign's money. PACs spend 10 million on her.

According to you, if I win, I spent less than her. I think you're assuming that the PAC and other soft monies are distributed evenly. I'd need to see a cite for that.

Note that the studies were not comparing candidate to opponent - at least not Levitt study. It was comparing candidate's spending to his own spending against the same opponent in subsequent campaigns.

[Frank]

If more spending by the candidate does not seem to improve his election chances, why would you think that more third party spending would?
Assuming that the study is correct: if the question is, "Does money buy elections?" what in the world make you think that answering the question, "Does money spent by the candidate personally or by his/her campaign buy elections?" is an answer to your thread title?

For instance, the cite in your OP references Thomas Golisano spending $93 million of his own money to run for governor three times. How much did the Democratic and Republican campaigns spend in those three campaigns? How much did the Democratic and Republican parties spend on the gubernatorial campaigns? How much did PACs spend? Corporations? Unions? Political associations?

[Ibn Warraq]

I'm a candidate. I spend 1 million dollars. PACs supporting me spend 50 million dollars.

My opponent spends 2 million of her campaign's money. PACs spend 10 million on her.

According to you, if I win, I spent less than her. I think you're assuming that the PAC and other soft monies are distributed evenly. I'd need to see a cite for that.

PAC donations to the candidate are counted in the study.

I know that there are people who feel that we should punish the Sierra Club for distributing leaflets criticizing the environmental records of Republican Senators and that the movie Fahrenheit 911 should have been banned.

Since you're an opponent of the Citizens United decision I assume you support those things, since arguing that the Sierra Club and Michael Moore were protected by the First Amendment but that Citizens United would be extremely hypocritical.

However, there's no evidence that those groups are all that effective at defeating candidates they oppose.

[Ibn Warraq]

Assuming that the study is correct: if the question is, "Does money buy elections?" what in the world make you think that answering the question, "Does money spent by the candidate personally or by his/her campaign buy elections?" is an answer to your thread title?

For instance, the cite in your OP references Thomas Golisano spending $93 million of his own money to run for governor three times. How much did the Democratic and Republican campaigns spend in those three campaigns? How much did the Democratic and Republican parties spend on the gubernatorial campaigns? How much did PACs spend? Corporations? Unions? Political associations?

Once again, PAC donations to the candidate were counted in the study.

[GIGObuster]

Once again, PAC donations to the candidate were counted in the study.

A recent one? Because the biggest flaw in all this that I see is is that the book and study were made before the recent reprehensible supreme court decision that made the tea party rise possible. PACs are not the only game in town now.

But if papers like http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=cmc_theses&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dlevitt%2520money%2520elections%25 20pac%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D30%26ved%3D0CFsQFjAJOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.claremont .edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1131%2526context%253Dcmc_theses%26ei%3DZ4HlTvq6AYav sAK9rc2XBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHX7wCOWQs4jJoRPzoMQt36ZExrsg%26cad%3Drja#search=%22levitt%20money%20electio ns%20pac%22 are a clue, then people like Feigenbaum and Shelton (2010) showed that there are critics of Levitt even from before the latest money feasts, the conclusion that I do agree with is that there are enough doubts out there for Levitt to be so sure of what he is claiming regarding money in elections.

[Ibn Warraq]

A recent one? Because the biggest flaw in all this that I see is is that the book and study were made before the recent reprehensible supreme court decision that made the tea party rise possible.

Since you find the decision reprehensible can you please explain to me why a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Similarly, since you support the banning of Hillary: The Movie, do you also feel that the FEC would have been justified in banning Fahrenheit 911.

If not, please explain why you think the FEC was write to ban Hillary: The Movie but not Fahrenheit 911.

Beyond that, you didn't point out any flaws in Levitt's paper.

Can you please do so in addition to explaining your support for the banning of Hillary: The Movie and your presumed support for the banning of Fahrenheit 911 in 2004.

Thanks

[GIGObuster]

Since you find the decision reprehensible can you please explain to me why a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Similarly, since you support the banning of Hillary: The Movie, do you also feel that the FEC would have been justified in banning Fahrenheit 911.

If not, please explain why you think the FEC was write to ban Hillary: The Movie but not Fahrenheit 911.

Thanks
Oh oh, bulls eye, notice how quick he jumps from not looking at the evidence to unrelated points?

[Evil Captor]

Oh oh, bulls eye, notice how quick he jumps from not looking at the evidence to unrelated points?

It's a total hijack of the thread. The question is does money influence elections, nothing was mentioned about free speech.

[GIGObuster]

Money is the issue here, we would be having this conversation IMHO if the supreme court had limited the decision to what just "Hillary did".


Beyond that, you didn't point out any flaws in Levitt's paper.


I already did, the problem was that by now you should had learned that I do not post links just for shits and googles, :)

http://scholarship.claremont.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1131&context=cmc_theses&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3Dlevitt%2520money%2520elections%25 20pac%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D30%26ved%3D0CFsQFjAJOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.claremont .edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1131%2526context%253Dcmc_theses%26ei%3DZ4HlTvq6AYav sAK9rc2XBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHX7wCOWQs4jJoRPzoMQt36ZExrsg%26cad%3Drja#search=%22levitt%20money%20electio ns%20pac%22
In his study, Levitt concluded that money had no discernible effect on
election outcomes. Since then, many researchers have challenged these findings, coming up
with mixed results (Erikson and Palfrey 1998, Gerber 1998, Goldstein and Freedman 2000,
Stratmann 2006, 2009, Jacobson 1985, 1990, 2006). Feigenbaum and Shelton (2010) point
out one flaw in Levitt’s study is that his work lacks external validity since repeat candidates
already have an established name and reputation. Furthermore, empirical data shows that
at least challengers in elections benefit from more money although incumbents are barely
affected when using OLS models (Gerber 1998). Since then, researchers have not been able to
conclusively determine if money has an unambiguous effect on elections after controlling for
other factors. Most recently, Feigenbaum and Shelton study money in presidential primaries
using methods similar to this project. Using data from the Iowa Electronic Market, IEM,
and presidential primaries, they find evidence for a positive feedback loop between campaign
contributions and likelihood of winning the election.

[Ibn Warraq]

It's a total hijack of the thread. The question is does money influence elections, nothing was mentioned about free speech.

No, the question was if money "bought elections" not if it influenced elections.

Nobody denies that money is necessary for running for office.

[Ibn Warraq]

Oh oh, bulls eye, notice how quick he jumps from not looking at the evidence to unrelated points?

Apologies.

I didn't mean to embarrass you by bringing up the fact that you supported the banning of films.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with supporting book-burning.

Be honest about supporting the banning of movies and books you don't like.

In the long run, people will have vastly more respect for you.

I already did, the problem was that by now you should had learned that I do not post links just for shits and googles,

Actually, you just posted a link you didn't make any arguments.

That said, I do apologize for assuming that you were capable of on your own formulating arguments explaining why the studies were flawed.

I didn't realize that you believed in merely linking to other people's work.

I sincerely apologize for assuming you were an original thinker capable of putting forth a compelling argument of your own as opposed to merely linking to others.

From now on you have my word that I will not overestimate your ability to form an argument or your willingness to put forth your own opinion as opposed to hiding behind that of someone else.

That said, I am interested to hear from someone who supports the banning of movies they don't like so if you wouldn't mind would you please explain your reasoning behind supporting laws allowing the government to ban both Hillary: The Movie and Fahrenheit 911.

And please, if it's not too much to ask, please post your own arguments rather than linking to someone else's arguments.

Thanks

[Ibn Warraq]

Money is the issue here, we would be having this conversation IMHO if the supreme court had limited the decision to what just "Hillary did".


I'm sorry, but this sentence is completely incoherent.

It's not clear what you're saying.

You claim that "We would be having this conversation IMHO if the supreme(sic) court(sic) had limited the decision to what just "Hillary did".

What do you mean?

Also, should "what just" actually be "just what"?

Thanks

[GIGObuster]

Apologies.

I didn't mean to embarrass you by bringing up the fact that you supported the banning of films.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with supporting book-burning.

Be honest about supporting the banning of movies and books you don't like.

In the long run, people will have vastly more respect for you.



Actually, you just posted a link you didn't make any arguments.

That said, I do apologize for assuming that you were capable of on your own formulating arguments explaining why the studies were flawed.

I didn't realize that you believed in merely linking to other people's work.

I sincerely apologize for assuming you were an original thinker capable of putting forth a compelling argument of your own as opposed to merely linking to others.

From now on you have my word that I will not overestimate your ability to form an argument or your willingness to put forth your own opinion as opposed to hiding behind that of someone else.

That said, I am interested to hear from someone who supports the banning of movies they don't like so if you wouldn't mind would you please explain your reasoning behind supporting laws allowing the government to ban both Hillary: The Movie and Fahrenheit 911.

And please, if it's not too much to ask, please post your own arguments rather than linking to someone else's arguments.

Thanks

Translation: You do not bother to check the evidence ever, it is easier for you to personally attract the poster, so I will ignore your sorry attempt at thinking that is fine and dandy to ignore pertinent information that should modify what you attempt to pass as "educated" opinion.

As I pointed before, I do distrust people that rely mostly on books to expand on their old papers. Levitt is indeed ignoring recent developments and positive feedback loops.

[tomndebb]

Since you find the decision reprehensible can you please explain to me why a documentary criticizing Hillary Clinton isn't protected by the First Amendment.

Similarly, since you support the banning of Hillary: The Movie, do you also feel that the FEC would have been justified in banning Fahrenheit 911.

If not, please explain why you think the FEC was write to ban Hillary: The Movie but not Fahrenheit 911.

Beyond that, you didn't point out any flaws in Levitt's paper.

Can you please do so in addition to explaining your support for the banning of Hillary: The Movie and your presumed support for the banning of Fahrenheit 911 in 2004."Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions are rather worthless except to expose the questioner as one more interested in cheap tricks than actual discussion.

In this case, they are so far beyond even a straw man position as to be a truly dishonest ploy.

Knock it off.

Further, there are far too many personal attacks in the following post.Apologies.

I didn't mean to embarrass you by bringing up the fact that you supported the banning of films.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with supporting book-burning.

Be honest about supporting the banning of movies and books you don't like.

In the long run, people will have vastly more respect for you.

Actually, you just posted a link you didn't make any arguments.

That said, I do apologize for assuming that you were capable of on your own formulating arguments explaining why the studies were flawed.

I didn't realize that you believed in merely linking to other people's work.

I sincerely apologize for assuming you were an original thinker capable of putting forth a compelling argument of your own as opposed to merely linking to others.

From now on you have my word that I will not overestimate your ability to form an argument or your willingness to put forth your own opinion as opposed to hiding behind that of someone else.

That said, I am interested to hear from someone who supports the banning of movies they don't like so if you wouldn't mind would you please explain your reasoning behind supporting laws allowing the government to ban both Hillary: The Movie and Fahrenheit 911.

And please, if it's not too much to ask, please post your own arguments rather than linking to someone else's arguments.Stick to the actual discussion and leave the personal comments for The BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

[Jas09]

The data I have seen (including the Leavitt and a few others) indicates that increased spending does very little for well-known candidates. That is, a million extra bucks spent by Obama isn't really going to move the needle very much in 2012.

However, additional money makes a very large difference when you look at little-known candidates getting their name recognition up.

Or, a more concise way to put it is - money won't make them like you, but it can make them know you. Which is pretty much a required first step for getting elected.

I think it's important to differentiate between self-funded campaigns (which tend to do poorly) and ones that spend a lot from donations (where at a minimum getting lots of people to give you money indicates some level of strong support).

[Ibn Warraq]

"Have you stopped beating your wife?" questions are rather worthless except to expose the questioner as one more interested in cheap tricks than actual discussion.

In this case, they are so far beyond even a straw man position as to be a truly dishonest ploy.

Knock it off.

I'm sorry but what you are saying is highly illogical.

GIGO claimed that the Citizens United decision was "reprehensible".

The decision was all about whether or not McCain-Feingold was constitutional and whether the government could ban a documentary criticizing a political candidate during an election season.

Specifically, the case was regarding whether or not Citizens United could distribute a documentary critizing Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries.

Now if someone declares a decision overturning McCain-Feingold and overturning the FEC's temporary banning of a movie then presumably it's not illogical to believe the person feels that McCain-Feingold was a good law and supports the government's temporary banning of Hillary: The Movie.

Based on your logic if someone makes a reference to "the reprehensible Roe v. Wade decision" then it would be wrong for me to ask them why they think the government should have the power to ban abortions and that such a question was "a strawman" if not "far from a strawman" and tantamount to asking him "have you stopped beating your wife."

Sorry, but if someone attacks a Supreme Court ruling on whether or not the government can ban a movie then I see nothing wrong with asking them why they think the government has the right to ban a movie.

Now if you think that's not only a strawman but "far from a strawman" please explain your reasoning.

Thanks

[puddleglum]

If money means little in elections and candidates can no longer keep unspent campaing contributions then why do politicians spend so much of their time raising money for their reelection campaigns?

The findings do not show that money has no effect just that it has a small effect. In politics getting 49.9995% of the vote in a two person rate gets you the same result as getting 0% of the vote. Therefore politicians raise and spend huge amounts of money to get those final 1 or 2 percentage points.

[Ibn Warraq]

Further, there are far too many personal attacks in the following post.Stick to the actual discussion and leave the personal comments for The BBQ Pit.

[ /Moderating ]

I'm not sure why those were considered personal attacks and insults but "I will ignore your sorry attempt at thinking" isn't.

[GIGObuster]

I'm not sure why those were considered personal attacks and insults but "I will ignore your sorry attempt at thinking" isn't.

Stop trying to put words in the mouths of others that they never said, by removing the rest you are attempting to make say something to the person and not the opinion, what I said was:

"so I will ignore your sorry attempt at thinking that is fine and dandy to ignore pertinent information that should modify what you attempt to pass as "educated" opinion."

So yes, I do concentrate on your opinion, what I do see is what Jas09 and others said, there are several items missed on that research by Levitt, ignoring the march of time and the pertinent research based criticism against Levitt is not a good idea.

[Evil Captor]

I would maintain that in saying money cannot buy elections, Terr is making an extraordinary claim. After all, money has historically been used to buy votes, and elections are made of votes. And the constant whoring that politicians on both side of the aisle do for campaign money indicates that they feel that money is essential to running a winning campaign -- and who would know better?

Now, if you are making an extraordinary claim, extraordinary proof is required.

The fact that, as cited above, other social scientists have found results that either do not support or directly contradict the OP's cite means that his extraordinary claim does not have extraordinary proof, and hence can be safely ignored until such time as actual extraordinary proof exists.

[Damuri Ajashi]

I don't know if money can buy large election but they can certainly buy some primaries and local elections. And even in larger elections there is a price of admission. If you can't raise a certain amount of money by certain deadlines, your candidacy is in peril.

[Stratocaster]

I would maintain that in saying money cannot buy elections, Terr is making an extraordinary claim. After all, money has historically been used to buy votes, and elections are made of votes.No, that's bribery, a different matter altogether. Asserting that campaign dollars beyond a certain threshold sway elections materially is no less an extraordinary claim than the counter. What leads you to conclude that campaign dollars sway elections, other than "everybody knows it"?

[IntelliQ]

A variable to consider:


“Free media absolutely overwhelms paid advertising in presidential campaigns,” Mr. McKinnon said.

Story lines and agendas, he said, are set by the news media and debates. “People pay close attention to presidential contests in a way they don’t to any other elections. They are not easily persuaded by paid messages. So, just because you’ve got a lot of money, or don’t have any money, doesn’t mean you are necessarily in or out of the game in a presidential contest.”

link (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/dec/12/gingrich-uses-and-bashes-media-to-get-ahead/?page=2)


Sounds reasonable to me.

[Jas09]

Sure, but that's for a presidential election. It doesn't really apply for a State Senate seat, or even a US House seat. I think in those races, particularly as a challenger with low name recognition, money has a sizable impact.

And I appreciate the comment above about how much a presidential or US Senate candidate would be willing to pay for 1-2% of the vote. That is not inconsequential.

[Lightnin']

If money doesn't effectively "buy" elections, then I must admit that I find myself wondering whether it's a good idea to vote for politicians who insist on "throwing away" all that money they raised for the campaign. Why do politicians insist on spending campaign funds when, apparently, the money spent doesn't affect the election (as the author suggests)?

[Terr]

If money doesn't effectively "buy" elections, then I must admit that I find myself wondering whether it's a good idea to vote for politicians who insist on "throwing away" all that money they raised for the campaign. Why do politicians insist on spending campaign funds when, apparently, the money spent doesn't affect the election (as the author suggests)?Politicians are not really smarter than the voters. And the "money gets you elected" is a meme firmly stuck in voters' (and thus politicians') mind.

[Lightnin']

Politicians are not really smarter than the voters. And the "money gets you elected" is a meme firmly stuck in voters' (and thus politicians') mind.

One would think, however, that campaign managers are smarter than the voters- at least so far as running a campaign, that is. I mean, it is their job, after all.

I suppose it could be argued that it's in a campaign manager's best interests to spend as much campaign money as possible... but I don't agree. I'd think that if a manager could find a way to run the campaign for less, they'd do it in a heartbeat.

Don't get me wrong- I would love for it to be proven that money doesn't buy elections (or at least seriously influence them)- but I don't believe it's supported by real-world examples.

[DrCube]

Money may not buy elections, but it buys politicians. It doesn't matter what the guy says during campaign time, if corporations and lobbies can buy his vote once in office.

[Terr]

Money may not buy elections, but it buys politicians. It doesn't matter what the guy says during campaign time, if corporations and lobbies can buy his vote once in office.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CampaignFinance.html

Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.4 Of course, if candidates choose their policy positions in anticipation of a subsequent payoff in campaign contributions, there would be no real distinction between accepting bribes and accepting contributions from like-minded voters. However, studies of legislative behavior indicate that the most important determinants of an incumbent’s voting record are constituent interests, party, and personal ideology. In election years, constituent interests become more important than in nonelection years, but overall, these three factors explain nearly all of the variation in incumbents’ voting records.

===================================

Except for campaign contributions, exactly how can corporations "buy" a politician or his vote?

[Cyberhwk]

A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote.
What am I missing here? It's only 1% but since 1992 the average margin of popular vote victory in Presidential elections is only 4.8%. That means spending accounts for over 20% of who wins before a candidate even opens their mouth. That's significant, no?

[DrCube]

===================================

Except for campaign contributions, exactly how can corporations "buy" a politician or his vote?

Lobbies. Do you believe that SOPA is really in congress or their constituents' best interests? It was written, bought and paid for by the RIAA. There are a million other examples, and very few counterexamples.

[Terr]

Lobbies. Do you believe that SOPA is really in congress or their constituents' best interests? It was written, bought and paid for by the RIAA. There are a million other examples, and very few counterexamples.Ok. Please explain the mechanism of lobbies "buying" politicians (outside of campaign contributions).