[chumich1]

It has a more significant effect on the smaller elections. When people are distracted by the presidential contests they forget that Joe Shmo stands no chance against the guy with all the rich friends. He can't buy local ads or get his name on all the billboards.

[marknutter]

I always hear this goal-post moving argument when people point out that Presidential candidates who received large sums of money have since dropped out of the race, but never is any evidence to support that claim provided. Can you provide a few reputable, non-bias sources that prove this cause-and-effect you're claiming exists?

[SpaceCadetJones]

I don't think it's so much goal post moving as a lot of us never claimed it buys elections. My assertion has always been that generally speaking if you want to be competitive politically you need to scratch the backs of elites to get the proper funding to be relevant in elections. It's not an absolute, rather that there is excessive corporate influence that undermines the political process

A couple of studies from Princeton https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/fi... https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/idr.pdf

A biased write up on some of the findings, along with references to other sources at the end

https://represent.us/action/theproblem-4/

[marknutter]

I'm pretty sure everyone who wants campaign finance reform claims that money buys elections, unless a situation doesn't fit that narrative in which case the goal posts are shifted or moved. I'll check out your links though, thanks very much for those.

[whatok]

That and once the tentacles are very cheaply put in on a tiny local race, then a city council seat, then state legislature, then....

Smaller sums of money go a long way in smaller races but you can spread your bets widely enough and buy quite a bit of loyalty in the process.