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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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).