>

If you think money grants so much control over elections, why is so little of it spent on elections?  
The total amount spent on all House and Senate elections in 2022 was 9 billion, or less than 5% of the money that Elon Musk lost this year. Or 1 weeks worth of revenue for Amazon or Saudi Aramco.  Why spend 44 billion on twitter if you could buy every seat in congress for 20% of that price?
The average house of representatives member spends 2 million dollars on their election, this  is chump change.  If you could buy control of congress for so little money, why didn't a rich democrat donor do it this midterm? If congress seats are up for sale shouldn't there at least be a bidding war to drive up that price?
Why did Michael Bloomberg, by far the richest person in the 2020 Democratic primary get destroyed?  Shouldn't he have just been able to sway the primary with his money?
If corporations could easily spend money to change policy, why do regulations like Dodd-Frank get passed?  It costs banks more than 50 billion dollars per year, shouldn't they have just spent a few billion to buy off congress to not pass it, or spend a few billion now to get it repealed? Why do the EPA, SEC, or FDA exist, and cost hundreds of billions of dollars for corporations every year?  Shouldn't it be easy for corporations to just buy the influence they need to get rid of those costs?
Charities like United Way or Habitat for Humanity raise billions of dollars every year, why don't they just pay off the government to get the changes they want enacted?
The truth is that money just doesn't have that big of an impact, and that belief doesn't align at all with reality when you examine the actual amounts that get spent.
/u/Inaerius (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I’ve spent some time working in political campaigns, and I think most voters would be surprised to learn just how slapdash most political organizations are. A lot of the time, when people hold views like the one you’re sharing here, I get the impression they imagine political machines as powerful, robust, and precise—but the reality is a lot more chaotic. There are people running around like headless chickens trying to figure out what the hell the voters want, and it’s getting harder and harder to tell these days because polling is so much less reliable than it used to be. 
But anyway, when it comes to your view, I think you’re right up to a point. Money has too much influence, and far too large a percentage of our political class is concerned with money above all else. That’s bad. 
But, the truth is that the voters always get final say, and I’ve personally witnessed several races where the side with the most money didn’t win. Increasingly, I see the problem of cynicism as being worse than corruption, as cynicism can create self-fulfilling prophecies. Politicians know what gets them elected—that’s what they’re good at—and if their voters are deeply cynical and apathetic and hard to reach, that ironically makes big donors and lobbyists more powerful. 
Anyway, the overall point is that we as voters have a lot of power over what elected officials do; the fact that we fail to wield it well explains a lot of what’s going on now. >

The cynicism comes from feeling that rich and powerful people are controlling the system, not the people. >

Dude is just lobbying to keep his job >

By “working” maybe I should have said “volunteering.” I’ve never been paid to work on a campaign, but I’ve logged lots of hours block walking, passing out flyers, trying to register voters, etc. >

I admire you. >

It's really not hard! If you've got an extra hour a week to spend on something, you could start showing up for local political stuff. You quickly figure out who the good and people are in that space.