sydnor wrote:pacino wrote:Also, it suggests that maybe spending tons of effort trying to get campaign finance reform passed isn't really worth it. Cantor had a ton of money and still got creamed. Moreover, we've seen how the interweb can be leveraged to provide lots of money from small contributors.
the vast majority of the time, the candidate with more money ends up winning. it's still a huge issue.
agree with pacino, that is some serious "exception that proves the rule" ish going on.
The natural response by the establishment, btw, will be to just raise MORE money to make sure this doesn't happen.
You do hit a point of diminishing returns though--I think when Corzine ran in 2000, he probably would have done better had he dialed back his spending a bit.
I'm in favor of CFR, I think the idea that money=speech is nonsense, and I don't think corporations have the same rights as people. But two things to keep in mind--candidates will find ways around any law you pass. PACs, Soft money, were actually the consequences of earlier reforms. Second, it would take a huge amount of political capital to do anything effective, and I'm not sure that's the best place to use those resources.
One last point--yes, the candidate with the most money usually wins. But the causal arrow isn't exactly clearly in one direction. Cantor was able to raise money not because those groups loved him, but because he was a powerful member of Congress. Candidates who are perceived as having no chance can't raise money. Candidates who are sure things raise money easily.
