would be nice to see how he arrived at that conclusion if you have a link. As is, I'm not sure how one can establish that link w/o it being a self aggravating issue (more spending, more exposure, more popularity). I guess I'm saying is, it sounds like a coupled math problem. I'm not the biggest fan of populists necessarily but I've seen them lose a few races even when they were ahead in the polls when money entered big in favor of their competitors... though one could argue these may be special cases and not the norm.
Legalized corruption/bribery thread.
- Thread starter Cuddles
- Start date
would be nice to see how he arrived at that conclusion if you have a link. As is, I'm not sure how one can establish that link w/o it being a self aggravating issue (more spending, more exposure, more popularity). I guess I'm saying is, it sounds like a coupled math problem. I'm not the biggest fan of populists necessarily but I've seen them lose a few races even when they were ahead in the polls when money entered big in favor of their competitors... though one could argue these may be special cases and not the norm.
no analysis but here's an article:
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-money-really-buy-elections/
It's written in his first book.
hmm....it's a little light on details/methodology and heavy on the anecdotal. This was recorded a few yrs after citizens united decision ('09) so also wonder how much more effective money has become. PACs and dark money aren't your typical campaign advertising spending after all. If dark money brings a lawsuit or writes proposal and funds local campaigns hampering the democratic process of a competing group (say black/youth dems), then is that accounted for?
I am seeing a lot of gaslighting, obfuscation, and lying by omission in the press for instance. We didn't have Cambridge Analytica and "dems are blood drinking pedos" in the mainstream back then. And yes, i'm speculating on how much money's played into those narratives, but it's not exactly "obscure" reporting at fox/newsmax/alex jones/etc..
A few others echoing your article:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2605401
Now, I'm obviously not anti-science but I've seen "studies" pushing narratives before and there's certainly an incentive by industries (lobbying/advertising) to say "no causation from campaign spending". If that is truly the case, then let's cap it the same for each candidate since money has no influence. After all, why are we even creating a moral hazard where a candidate "owes" favors to his biggest backers especially if the money had no influence in his/her win to begin with?
https://harvardpolitics.com/campaign-finance-how-did-money-influence-2020-u-s-senate-elections/
https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1646582979374841875?s=20
https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1646583503805460480?s=20
https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1646583808764903426?s=20
https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1646583812531400704?s=20
https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1646584660007288852?s=20
https://twitter.com/propublica/status/1646585093828345870?s=20
Last edited:
