Why do we assume that big money control who wins an election?

[hedgehog]

After a certain point, there are no more commercials to buy. My guess is that people toss most brochures received in the mail.

[malthaussen]

1. Some people give too much credence to cash.

It makes a good narrative. But a certain amount of funding for advertisements is necessary for exposure. As for the rich, I think they're just bored with nothing to spend all their loot on. As for the rest of us, we believe what we are told.

-- Mal

[PSPS]

2. Because over 90% of contested races are won by the biggest spender.

[Fred Sanders]

3. Isn't it more like 98%? And advertising works, so many folks are sorry to say, Walking BrainDead.

The "what does money matter" opinion folks have not been paying much attention, or have failed to grasp what CU means or are counter-ops.

[BillZBubb]

4. As stated above: Overwhelmingly the big spender wins the race.

The big spender simply has more resources available to motivate voters.

[rurallib]

5. Money may not be the final decider, but it makes people competitive

who shouldn't even have a flicker of hope.
BTW - I think the strategy of money is to make the less likely voters stay away from voting and drive turnout down, not to get people out to vote.

[Sunlei]

6. by the very close control of elections, even at the very local levels. That takes a lot of money.

[libdem4life]

7. It's now basically advertising...selling the candidate...and with Citizen's United it increased

geometrically. Kind of like what it costs to buy a Super Bowl Ad. Price goes up every year...supply and demand. Politics are the same.

[davidpdx]

8. Skepticism and rightfully so

The SCOTUS decision made many of us more skeptical about big money. I think even though Citizen's United was scrapped before the 2012 election, it didn't have much of an effect. President Obama was an incumbent with a strong organization and strong fundraising much of it from grassroots like people on DU. Romney was a bumbling idiot that couldn't pull his head out of his ass and got trounced.

I think 2016 is going to be much different though. Money is going to be more of an issue with no incumbent running and superpac's attacking other candidates with unlimited money. I know it sounds like gloom and doom, but this is going to be a very ugly election cycle. Maybe, just maybe an ugly election is what is needed to convince enough Americans to get behind a constitutional amendment to undo Citizen's United.

[Kablooie]

9. Even if it doesn't it controls what the winner will do once he's in office.

Bribery is the most sacred of all political activities.

[Cosmocat]

10. it shouldn't, but it does

if people were not susceptible to the bullshit, they wouldn't throw so much money into it.

But, they are, so it works.

[Persondem]

11. Money is a big influence, but it doesn't always work. Just ask

Karl Rove.

"A post-election analysis by the Sunlight Foundation found that very few of the candidates supported by Rove's groups emerged victorious on Tuesday. Just 1.29% of the $104 million spent by American Crossroads backed a winning candidate. Crossroads GPS fared slightly better, achieving a 14.4% return on its $70 million in reported spending."

Full article here.