# Campaign Finance Question – need answer fast **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [February 1, 2024, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-question-need-answer-fast/996992 "2024-02-01T22:07:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2024, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-question-need-answer-fast/996992/1 "2024-02-01T22:07:30Z")
Ok, yeah, “need answer fast” is /s , if the mods want to change that. On another thread, I saw someone suggest that they would like to see [some candidate] spend money they do not really have to, to get re-elected, and I got to wondering about the dynamics of that. For example, Senator Lornog Bifflesnort has a pretty safe seat. Just about anyone who runs against Lornog will have about a 1% chance of getting a quarter of the total votes. But, you have found a chink in the Bifflesnort armor, which you can exploit to force Bifflesnort to spend many millions of dollars on the election that otherwise would not have been needed. And it will cost you almost nothing.        But, is it worth doing? It will probably give you a feeling of satisfaction, while making a lot of people annoyed that the campaign ad density has increased, though we all know that there is no real chance of the Senator being ousted.        Now, though, Senator Bifflesnort will be forced to recoup the cost of that pointless campaign, which means more fundraising will be needed, more lobbyists will have to be placated, more graft will happen. Most likely, Bifflesnort will be even less inclined to pay attention to “the other side”, who pushed him into the wringer. How do you make this calculation? If you do nothing, the situation will not get better. If you act, it is almost certain to get worse. Should you gamble on “gets worse” leading to a long-term net positive? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2024, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-question-need-answer-fast/996992/2 "2024-02-02T00:14:57Z")
Yes - it takes donations and attention from other more winnable races. It may also help other candidates from your party in your state. And there’s always a chance of a scandal that could propel you to an unlikely victory. ---
**Author:** ![flurb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/51bf81/32.png) [@flurb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/flurb)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2024, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-question-need-answer-fast/996992/3 "2024-02-02T20:13:02Z")
Yeah, I’m not really even understanding why you wouldn’t. How is the situation “almost certain to get worse” in this scenario? Because the incumbent will be upset he had to spend money? ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [February 2, 2024, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-question-need-answer-fast/996992/4 "2024-02-02T20:26:32Z")
Well, yes. Harassing the guy is entirely within bounds, but the one common response to that is to get worse. If Bifflesnort weathers the election, the claim of a “mandate” can look justified. The entities that Bifflesnort then has to court to raise funds from will perceive that the Senator is even more beholden to them (I read somewhere that members of Congress have to get busy fundraising right after being elected). In other words, losing the fight may make you feel like _at least we tried_, but the ultimate effect could be very costly. Doing nothing might yield a similar result WRT to Bifflesnort’s attitude, though, so it looks like the safe-district elections are a damned if you do/damned if you don’t situation. I guess it is unfortunate that safe districts even exist. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2024, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-question-need-answer-fast/996992/5 "2024-02-05T20:30:38Z")
I guess I’m having a hard time visualizing the abstract hypothetical. It might be useful to know the specific instance that prompted this question to help understand your concerns. My general feeling is that Bifflesnort will probably fund raise to the greatest degree possible whether or not he is challenged. If he has more money than he needs then he will either save it for a rainy day, grift it to his own personal gain or hand it up to his party to use on some other similar candidate. As for the second concern that since he is already antagonistic to your interests (otherwise why would you challenge him) I don’t see that challenging him will make things worse unless he is a particularly vengeful SOB like Trump, and it might convince him to give in to you a little in the hopes that you will be mollified enough not to challenge him again. So again it probably depends on the nature of the candidate. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2024, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campaign-finance-question-need-answer-fast/996992/6 "2024-02-06T00:03:07Z")
> [@eschereal](#): > > Well, yes. Harassing the guy is entirely within bounds, but the one common response to that is to get worse. Bifflesnort is likely to get worse no matter what you do. Altering your actions because you’re afraid your opponent will get _even more horrible_ is seldom a winning strategy. It’s the strategy of a victim.