[floatrock]

Candidates with the most spending win 8 of 10 senate races and 9 of 10 house races. It's there in the data: https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2012/01/big-spender-always-...

The reality is money buys elections.

Given the choice between 10 donors that can afford to just drop well above the median annual salary (albeit as 'independent' documentaries) and trying to rally 50k mom-and-pop donors that contribute $20 each, it's a no-brainer which is the easier route to electoral success.

The question is do you want to be represented by the voice of the 10 or the 50k?

We're not talking about overturning the first. We're trying to figure out how to reconcile the first with decentralizing some very centralized influence over public policy.

You should be distrustful of any centralized political system. That's what we have, not by design but by reality.

[jessaustin]

Incumbents win most elections. They also raise the most money, because... they're going to win. Campaign donors are corrupt but they're not stupid.

You're not going to fix the problems you want to fix, because you don't see how they are reinforced by every other aspect of the system.

[floatrock]

You're right, it's a self-reinforcing loop: incumbents win most elections, so they raise the most money, so they run the most effective campaigns, so they win the incumbency.

The solution is to chip away at this self-reinforcing feedback loop. Decentralize the fundraising through effective campaign finance limits and you create more dependence on small donors. Small donors care more about having their beliefs represented than choosing the winning horse (and the influence that comes with the winning horse being indebted to you).

The incumbency bias is a circular result of centralized money going for the easy bet. Decentralize public funding and the easy bet becomes less clear, weakening the feedback loop.