comment: >
  
  I'm sure if you ask a general question in a poll -- like do you think there's too much money in politics? -- that most Americans would say yes. But it doesn't seem like Republicans really get punished for voting against campaign finance bills, like the Disclose Act. 
  Most partisan Republican voters probably see it the way Republican politicians do. Why pass any laws that might help Democrats win more elections? And it just doesn't seem like the kind of issue that really moves independent voters. Democrats do try to make it a campaign issue. So that suggests they think it will help them at least on the margins -- and maybe it does. But apparently not enough to give them big enough majorities to actually pass any major legislation. 
  So I just don't think there's any evidence that big corporations are the reason campaign finance bills don't pass. If anything, some companies are probably tired of getting shaken down for campaign donations. I'm not saying "politicians ultimately have no choice but to do what the voters want." I'm saying voters have more power than they realize. But that has to actually translate into votes. If voters keep voting for candidates who oppose campaign finance reform, then nothing is going to change.
context: /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. >
  
  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. >
  
  I read a George Will column long ago where he noted that spending on a presidential election (both sides) was substantially less than Americans spend on Halloween candy in a given year. Now, in recent elections, I think that has flipped, but presidential election spending is still on the same order of magnitude as Americans spend on Halloween candy. >
  
  So first of all, I think it's worth recognizing that campaign finance and lobbying are two different things. Lobbying is just advocacy. There are lobbyists for good causes and lobbyists for bad causes. And if legislators are crafting some big complex piece of legislation, I actually think it's good to have all the stakeholders at the table. That doesn't mean they should get their way. But they should at least get heard. So lobbying is not legalized bribery. In fact, no money changes hands at all. But of course, powerful interests probably have an easier time getting heard. 
  I think we do absolutely need campaign finance reform. Lawmakers have to spend an absurd amount of their time raising money. And then you have a few billionaires who can shift races by dumping in millions of dollars of "independent" expenditures. So I think that's much more corrupt than lobbying.
  But I actually don't even think that campaign finance is at the real root of our political dysfunction. I think the biggest problem is that we are just extremely divided. For example, the NRA is a powerful lobbying organization. And it has a political action committee that spends money. But the real source of the NRA's power is: lots of Americans love guns. So it's not lobbying or corrupt campaign donations that kill even modest gun legislation. It's the fact that lots of voters love guns. And those voters vote for lawmakers who block gun bills (and environmental bills, antitrust bills, etc.). 
  So powerful interests can influence legislation through lobbying. And the campaign finance system is pretty absurd. But voters have much more power than they realize. Lawmakers in DC are much more scared of voters than they are of big corporations. >
  
  There is a very strong majority in favour of campaign finance reform, so I think that issue at least can't be explained by being divided. And if you accept that issue can be a result of vested interests, it makes sense that that would affect other issues too. >
  
  I think the biggest obstacle to campaign finance reform is that Republicans believe they benefit from the current system. So it's not big powerful corporations that are the problem, exactly. It's that politics is a zero sum game -- one side will always win and one side will lose. So it's really hard to get both sides to agree to any kinds of changes. There aren't really win-win scenarios. >
  
  If politicians ultimately have no choice but to do what the voters want, then it doesn't matter if it's a zero-sum game from their perspective. Lots of voters of every persuasion want it, so they woulde have to deliver it if other interest groups didn't have a lot of power.