# Does money buy elections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 11, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785 "2011-12-11T00:17:46Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/41 "2011-12-12T04:47:16Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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%2520pac%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D30%26ved%3D0CFsQFjAJOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.claremont.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1131%2526context%253Dcmc\_theses%26ei%3DZ4HlTvq6AYavsAK9rc2XBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHX7wCOWQs4jJoRPzoMQt36ZExrsg%26cad%3Drja#search="levitt%20money%20elections%20pac"](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%2520pac%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D30%26ved%3D0CFsQFjAJOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.claremont.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1131%2526context%253Dcmc_theses%26ei%3DZ4HlTvq6AYavsAK9rc2XBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHX7wCOWQs4jJoRPzoMQt36ZExrsg%26cad%3Drja#search=%22levitt%20money%20elections%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. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/42 "2011-12-12T04:55:43Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/43 "2011-12-12T04:57:56Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/44 "2011-12-12T05:10:35Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/45 "2011-12-12T05:11:38Z")
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”. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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%2520pac%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D30%26ved%3D0CFsQFjAJOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.claremont.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1131%2526context%253Dcmc\_theses%26ei%3DZ4HlTvq6AYavsAK9rc2XBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHX7wCOWQs4jJoRPzoMQt36ZExrsg%26cad%3Drja#search="levitt%20money%20elections%20pac"](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%2520pac%26source%3Dweb%26cd%3D30%26ved%3D0CFsQFjAJOBQ%26url%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.claremont.edu%252Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D1131%2526context%253Dcmc_theses%26ei%3DZ4HlTvq6AYavsAK9rc2XBg%26usg%3DAFQjCNHX7wCOWQs4jJoRPzoMQt36ZExrsg%26cad%3Drja#search=%22levitt%20money%20elections%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. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/46 "2011-12-12T05:58:49Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/47 "2011-12-12T06:08:41Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/48 "2011-12-12T06:12:58Z")
> [@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”. 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 ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/49 "2011-12-12T06:37:34Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 7:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/50 "2011-12-12T07:55:06Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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] ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/51 "2011-12-12T15:51:01Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/52 "2011-12-12T15:55:50Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > “_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 ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/53 "2011-12-12T15:59:04Z")
> [@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? 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. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/54 "2011-12-12T16:02:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/55 "2011-12-12T16:39:08Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > 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. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/56 "2011-12-12T18:37:33Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/57 "2011-12-12T19:58:31Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [December 12, 2011, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/58 "2011-12-12T20:35:31Z")
> [@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. 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”? ---
**Author:** ![IntelliQ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e99b99/32.png) [@IntelliQ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IntelliQ)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2011, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/59 "2011-12-13T14:33:32Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [December 13, 2011, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785/60 "2011-12-13T16:16:43Z")
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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-money-buy-elections/605785.md?page=4)