In terms of pure Presidential spending, I don’t think so, but that’s a weird one to look at since public financing was used for the general election campaigns until 2008.
False equivalence. If one party is more willing to cede to their donor’s wishes than the other, it’ll receive more donation money. Though there are instances of parties getting close support (some listed here) and with Goldman Sachs, which is pretty inexplicable under the assumption that candidates have a clear set of goals and the various donors want them to achieve them (if, as under the view that either party is as receptive to the interests of the donor with or without campaign contributions, campaign contributions are superfluous).
There are many other examples. Ron Johnson was outspent by Russ Feingold:
Daniel Webster was outspent by a huge margin by Alan Grayson:
The candidate that raises the most will win more often than not, but it’s very far from a sure thing.
Parties are irrelevant. They have almost no influence on what a candidate says or does.
Like I said, and you didn’t deny, if donors are just in it for influence and don’t care who wins, there would be more hedging. There isn’t.
What you do see, however, is hedging toward likely winners, which usually means incumbents. This is caused by two donor impulses - to be on the winning side, and to not waste money on a sure loser. This in turn skews the money relationship, as I mentioned before - the winner would have won anyway without all that money, and got it because he was going to win anyway.
Again, a simple cause-effect relationship can’t be posited. A candidate who is popular anyway, and would win without money, is likely to get more money sent to him or her.
It may be difficult to prove whether money bought any particular election, but it’s obvious that politicians and their donors think so.
Politicians think it makes it easier to win. They tell donors that money is essential to winning because that’s how you raise money.
Substitute ideology then. Donations to those with the ideology that regulations are abhorrent are more likely to pay off (and there are instances of individually tailored exceptions to a general principle). I don’t think those’d qualify as spotlight fallacies, as corruption has to be revealed, whereas institutional iniquity is openly documented (I note the incumbency effect is an extraneous variable which prevents demonstrating a causal relationship). I stand by the principle that if money has no real impact on elections, then campaign expenditure limits are analogous to controlled disposal of nuclear arms to prevent MAD. If campaign donations are only measures of popularity, then given equal expenditure, the more popular candidate would still win. If campaign expenditure does have an effect on votes, then through which mechanism?
The more popular candidate ALWAYS wins (except Al Gore).
Then electioneering communication expenditure has no effect on the democratic outcome of elections, merely on the right of people to advertise.
No, electioneering communication expenditure does have an affect on the democratic outcome of elections, AND the most popular candidate always wins.
Popularity is measured by whoever gets the most votes.
You don’t seem to fathom that bedrock fact. People go into the voting booth and pick someone of their own free will for whatever reason they wish. That’s democracy.
I am of the opinion that their popularity should not be dependent on their coffers.
Great. Then don’t vote that way.
Stop trying to force other voters to have your opinion. If they want to vote for whoever spends the most money, or not, that’s their right.
I post on a number of forums. What I am reading is a lot of frustration because of the inability to change things. People wanting to kill lobbyists and their political friends along with Banksters. I understand where they are coming from.
The answer is Shoot Them with video. I have been doing this for years and they don’t like it a lot. I got banned from videoing open council meetings in the 2 local communities. I have been hounding political forums with video since I ran for election here. See “Yellowhead Speaks 1993” During that election run I noticed how corrupt the political forums were and it made me mad real mad.
My plan is to run in every election from now on. Not to get elected but to out the Chamber of Commerce and their corrupt election stealing ways. My back will be to the attendees as I attack the CofC.
Political forums are the breeding grounds of corrupt politicians… Go get 'em Citizens
(2-Min 3-Sec) political forum; I attack the politicos back in 1993
The Chamber of Commerce rigs election / plants questions. That’s why the Marijuana question (or any other important issue) never come up. They would lose too much business and votes.
(2-Min 2-Sec) Civic forum the CofC posed 3 questions. Should the corporate vote be reinstated. 3 of our 4 elected councilors thought it should. This never made the local paper.
Our group the Citizens Coalition For Open Government Through Video had 165 questions we wanted the candidates to pull from a hat. That didn’t happen.
(2-Min 39Sec) here the signal for the planted question is a tap tap. There should be jail time for election tampering…
Wow people not allowed at the meet the candidates forum in the last federal election.
a councilor and family was threatened by the CofC for his standing up for the homeless. This friend confronted James Roszko the infamous cop killer and thief. While on his trapline. The CofC wanted the homeless shelter removed from town. When they realized that the whole town was behind the homeless they wanted their business names removed from the list of concerned businesses. A CofC member tried to control the meeting from the crowd. He had a bully covering his back.
Here in Canada there was a riot during the Hockey playoffs. Most of it was on video. This will never happen again. People know they can’t get away with crimes in public because there will be video.
CCFOGTV needs to be doing civic audits not Municipality hacks. They never find anything wrong. All 4 communities I know about are totally corrupt. No honest person can work or get promoted in those towns.
Hunt them down with video. It’s easy.
Why don’t elected officials or candidates ever attack the CofC for this practice. Because most are Chamber members. Thats why.
Doug Pederson AKA SpectateSwamp
Wow, i actually agree with everything Adaher said. Also i think that a lot of the money given to a candidate is not as much to influence the election but to influence the candidate so it is more likely to flow in the direction of the most likely winner.
and if they want to limit the amount of spending of a candidate?
They may not do anything that violates the Constitution.
and if they support an amendment to the Constitution?
If a constitutional amendment is adopted, it becomes part of the Constitution. I think that’s pretty obvious.