That’s just not true, in practice, though. Laws are written by legislators who ultimately need to win the confidence of their constituents. No amount of money will install a representative who cannot win a democratic election.
We’ve seen this play out time and time again.
Jeff Bezos’ own district in Washington State is represented by a socialist.
Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.
In the 2020 Democratic Primaries, Michael Bloomberg spent $1 billion (!!) on his campaign, and won just 9.4% of the popular vote (1.38% of pledged delegates).
Tom Steyer (a no-name billionaire), spent $343 million on his election, and won a humiliating 0.38% of the popular vote (0% of pledged delegates). Interestingly, you would think he would have at least 1/3 of Bloomberg's vote, which suggests that the vast majority of the variance in Bloomberg's vote share can be attributed to his existing name recognition as a famous businessman/politician. No amount of money was enough to make their core message resonate with ordinary voters.
Bernie Sanders spent $195 million on his election, having spent less than Bloomberg + Steyer and while having handily beaten both.
Joe Biden spent $105 million on his campaign, less than Bernie, and still beat him by 3 million votes.
Elizabeth Warren spent $121.31 million on her campaign, and also handily beat Bloomberg + Steyer while having spent far less than them, while losing to Biden while having spent more than him.
Those are just the anecdotes (of which there are many more).
Decades of research[1] suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election, and especially not for incumbents. Most of the research in the last century found[2] that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear[3]. Even the studies[4] that showed spending having the biggest effect, like one that found a more than 6 percent increase in vote share for incumbents, didn’t demonstrate that money actually causes wins.
In fact, those gains from spending likely translate to less of an advantage today, in a time period where voters are more stridently partisan. There are probably fewer and fewer people who are going to change their vote because they liked your ad.
Yes, money helps you broadcast your message. If your message resonates, you can even win elections (what a concept). But money alone isn't persuasive.
I didn't say anything about election funding. Having money to hire lobbyists lets people influence legislation to their benefit.[1] Big businesses can demand larger tax breaks by playing cities off each other.[2] These are just two ways in which more money translates into more influence.
> Having money to hire lobbyists lets people influence legislation to their benefit.
Sure, but ultimately the legislators are accountable to the voters, not the lobbyists. Most voters elect the candidate they think is most likely to represent their interests. Sometimes lobbyists influence legislators in ways that align with the interests of the legislator’s constituents, which is a feature and not a bug. When lobbyists influence legislators in ways that contradict with the interests of the legislator’s constituents, the incumbent is unseated — this isn’t uncommon.
> Big businesses can demand larger tax breaks by playing cities off each other
1. Competition among cities is what allows us to get the lowest possible tax for the highest amount of benefit. This doesn’t just happen with businesses, this also happens with individual taxpayers. This is why cities and states hesitate to raise taxes lest their citizens flee to lower tax states. Switzerland operates in the same way, where Cantons compete with one another. The net result is that the Swiss enjoy some of the lowest tax rates in the developed world, while maintaining one of the highest standards of living. This downward pressure on tax increases is a feature, not a bug.
2. Your own example is a bit of a contradiction, because Amazon ultimately failed to receive the tax break it wanted, since Queens/NYC “prevailed”
Yeah...no. Most voters are not paying to the nitty-gritty of legislation that their representative votes on. Representatives rarely ever read the full text of the bills they vote on. It's a stretch to say voters do so, let alone use that info to inform their votes. As you said, these are partisan times and voters mostly just vote for "their guy" (or gal).
In the case of Amazon, they failed to receive the tax break they wanted from one locality, after protests. They still got it from the Virginia location and they found out what other cities were willing to offer them. More importantly, because of their size they were able to make demands that smaller businesses could not - so it's not like all businesses benefit from these lower taxes. And dozens of stories like this play out nationwide every year, without much coverage. This is standard operating procedure when Walmart opens a new location.
> Most voters are not paying to the nitty-gritty of legislation that their representative votes on.
Sure, nobody suggested that they were. Voters pay attention to the high-level policy platforms of their representatives.
> As you said, these are partisan times and voters mostly just vote for "their guy" (or gal).
Yes, and "their guy (or gal)" are not arbitrarily chosen. The average voter chooses their representatives based on whether they think the representative is advancing the causes they care most about, or fighting against the causes they most disagree with.
> They still got it from the Virginia location and they found out what other cities were willing to offer them.
Sure, and that's what the residents/voters of Virginia sought out — local economic surplus.
> More importantly, because of their size they were able to make demands that smaller businesses could not - so it's not like all businesses benefit from these lower taxes.
This isn't necessarily true. Amazon, utilizes its economies of scale just like any other comparable institution. Unions can make demands that individual employees cannot, large nations can make demands that smaller nations cannot, Medicare might be able to make demands that smaller insurers cannot, etc etc. Most relevantly, small businesses themselves form industry associations that exert political force. And unlike power consolidation in labor unions or state actors, corporate consolidation is typically earned — people voluntarily engage with Amazon because it provides goods & services cheaply and reliably.
> And dozens of stories like this play out nationwide every year, without much coverage. This is standard operating procedure when Walmart opens a new location.
No they don't, this isn't even a falsifiable argument.
> No they don't, this isn't even a falsifiable argument.
I mean this is pretty common knowledge re: Walmart, I'm amazed you're even arguing about. But here you go:
"While it was not feasible to contact local officials in all 3,000-plus communities in which Wal-Mart’s U.S. stores are located to find other subsidy deals, we did take this approach for all of the company’s distribution centers that are in operation or are being developed. We found that 84 of the 91 centers have received subsidies totaling
at least $624 million. The deals, most of which involved a variety of subsidies, ranged as high as $48 million, with an average of about $7.4 million. As with the stores, a considerable amount of information on the size of the subsidies is not available, so the real total is certainly much higher."[1]
We’ve seen this play out time and time again.
Jeff Bezos’ own district in Washington State is represented by a socialist.
Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump by 2x in the 2016 election, and still lost. In fact, she had far more corporate backing than Donald Trump, and still lost.
In the 2020 Democratic Primaries, Michael Bloomberg spent $1 billion (!!) on his campaign, and won just 9.4% of the popular vote (1.38% of pledged delegates).
Tom Steyer (a no-name billionaire), spent $343 million on his election, and won a humiliating 0.38% of the popular vote (0% of pledged delegates). Interestingly, you would think he would have at least 1/3 of Bloomberg's vote, which suggests that the vast majority of the variance in Bloomberg's vote share can be attributed to his existing name recognition as a famous businessman/politician. No amount of money was enough to make their core message resonate with ordinary voters.
Bernie Sanders spent $195 million on his election, having spent less than Bloomberg + Steyer and while having handily beaten both.
Joe Biden spent $105 million on his campaign, less than Bernie, and still beat him by 3 million votes.
Elizabeth Warren spent $121.31 million on her campaign, and also handily beat Bloomberg + Steyer while having spent far less than them, while losing to Biden while having spent more than him.
Those are just the anecdotes (of which there are many more). Decades of research[1] suggest that money probably isn’t the deciding factor in who wins a general election, and especially not for incumbents. Most of the research in the last century found[2] that spending didn’t affect wins for incumbents and that the impact for challengers was unclear[3]. Even the studies[4] that showed spending having the biggest effect, like one that found a more than 6 percent increase in vote share for incumbents, didn’t demonstrate that money actually causes wins.
In fact, those gains from spending likely translate to less of an advantage today, in a time period where voters are more stridently partisan. There are probably fewer and fewer people who are going to change their vote because they liked your ad.
Yes, money helps you broadcast your message. If your message resonates, you can even win elections (what a concept). But money alone isn't persuasive.
[1] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2605401
[2] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002764203260415
[3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2138764?seq=1#metadata_info_tab...
[4] http://www.sas.rochester.edu/psc/clarke/214/Gerber98.pdf