Does money buy elections?

[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]

@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.

Read the studies I linked to. That is not what they were doing.

[GIGObuster]

@Terr

Campaign Finance - Econlib

… 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.

RealClimate: 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]

@GIGObuster

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]

@Terr

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.

@Terr

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]

@Little_Nemo

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]

@GIGObuster

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]

@GIGObuster

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]

@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?

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]

@Terr

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]

@Terr

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]

@Frank

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]

@Terr

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]

@Lobohan

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]

@Terr

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]

@Lobohan

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]

@Frank

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.