comment: >
  
  !delta I like how you explained the broadcasting effect and the relationship between money and time. I think people are more reserved nowadays to answer to door knocking from volunteers in person for an array of reasons (working, fear of talking to strangers, online channels to consume media, etc.). I think this is where money is starting to have more of a stranglehold on controlling the political message and advocating who and what to vote for through ads, digital and physical.
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. >
  
  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. >
  
  I think that's more an explanation of how money can have a lot of power in politics than an argument against money having a lot of power in politics. Of course if voters were very willing to punish politicians on their side, and voted with their interests, then there wouldn't be much room for money to influence things. But in practice voters will never be informed and determined enough to be willing to hurt their party over most issues- they can't be.
  So inevitably politicians won't have to worry much about voting against public opinion on those issues, and will have a stronger incentive to vote with corporations (they will get more donations, which will affect their chances of reelection). Hence it's inevitable that money will be more powerful than votes on most issues. Even though theoretically this could be solved by voters being well-informed and determined about everything, I don't think it's fair or helpful to say it's the fault of voters, because that isn't practical.
  The institutions themselves make a great deal of difference to how much influence corporations wield, so I think it makes more sense, and is certainly more helpful, to blame the system. Because as long as the system stays the same, voters are going to act like you described. >
  
  All the campaign spending in the world does nothing if it doesn't sway votes. Campaign money is only valuable to the extent it secures votes. The votes are the thing of value to put a politician in a seat. Money is only a means to those votes. >
  
  I don’t think campaign money is meant to influence the voters, but rather the elected officials who are voted in who draft and vote in the legislation. The votes don’t matter so much as who is elected and what parties can offer to push their agenda. >
  
  
  The votes don’t matter so much as who is elected and what parties can offer to push their agenda.
  
  The voters determine who is elected though right?
  If it's a case of politicians being elected and then not making good on their promises then we have to ask how is it that they get re-elected?
  Related question that I think you really need to contend with. If elected officials are not doing what the voters want how come they don't get voted out? >
  
  
  legal bribery (e.g. lobbying)
  
  As someone else mentioned, lobbying isn't legal bribery. Lobbying does lead to bad outcomes, but the reason this is the case is much more mundane. Voters simply let lobbyists write their legislation. Ever wonder how legislators spend 90% of their effort maintaining their public figure yet read and write thousands of pages of legislation? The simple answer is that they don't.
  Say you're a Senator and your voters want you to expand healthcare, but you know very little about healthcare. Meanwhile, a team of friendly lobbyists representing insurance companies tell exactly what type of bill to write that would accomplish this. Obviously, this will be heavily biased towards the insurance company, but it would require a lot of effort to collect information from less biased sources and revise the the lobbyists' suggestions and very few will recognize these efforts. That effort would be much better spent rehearsing an angry rant about why the opposing party is being bought out by lobbyists.
  Until people stop treating politics as entertainment rather than a technical duty, this will continue to happen. >
  
  I think a big issue in the US specifically is the frequency of elections: every 2 years. Basically, you're planning the next one before the previous one is done. If it were 5 years you'd have 3 extra years to do actual work.
  And ideally it should be the civil service that's writing the legislation, with perhaps some direction from ministers. The idea that members of parliament/congress write all the legislation themselves is ridiculous. It's become far too complicated for non-specialised people to do.
  (Incidentally, one side-effect of PR elections is that only the party as a whole needs financing for election, not individual members. Which makes elections much cheaper.). >
  
  I assume you're referring mainly to national elections. Consider local ones. Local politicians are certainly not immune to bribery but there is a LOT on the ballot at the local level that shouldn't be overlooked.
  I live in California. The ballot proposition system here alone is evidence of the kind of power — too much power, IMO — that voters have. Essentially, anyone can get any item on the statewide ballot if they collect enough signatures. In the 1970s we passed Proposition 13, which capped the amount that property taxes could increase every year that you owned a home. It completely reshaped our housing system, determined who stayed in their homes and for how long, determined who is now able to buy a house where, determined school funding. Money swayed this fight in a big way (as it does with many of the propositions year after year) but votes allowed it to happen. So even if this doesn't counter your argument about voting not being enough to push toward real problem solving (especially since I think the ballot proposition system has basically been commandeered by special interests with deep pockets), i think it does show that voting (or not voting) makes a huge impact. 
  There's a ton of other seats we vote on at the local level that make huge differences on a daily basis. We vote for school board members. Judges. District attorneys. The candidates who run for these seats can be radically different from each other, and voter turnout for local elections is often painfully low even though these offices affect our everyday lives much more directly than those at the national level. 
  And if you're still disheartened by the fact that money has a big influence over votes, I think there are a lot of local examples that have shown that money alone isn't everything. Los Angeles had a billionaire run for mayor who spent literally $100+ million on his campaign and lost. We also saw established, well connected political candidates lose to first timers who spent half as much on their campaigns. It happens, and it does make a difference. >
  
  While the candidate with more money almost always wins (over 90% of the time) this doesn't mean money causes their victory. the candidate who was going to win anyway is more likely to attract small donations due to being more popular, and big donors will donate to whoever they think will win to get on their good side early. tldr winning causes money, not the other way around
  source >
  
  Bloomberg spent over a BILLION dollars on his political campaign - more than biden, in much shorter at time frame - and completely and embarassingly lost. It's not just about the money. >
  
  Michael Bloomberg should be all the example we need to confirm this isn't true.
  Money does have a big influence in politics but as Michael Bloomberg shows, you can out spendeveryone else combined and still do poorly.
  Candidate quality matter more than money.  
  Look how many seats the Republicans lost this past election due to running candidates that even Republicans couldn't vote for, Hershair walker would be the prime example.  
  Look at Trump last election,, there were alot of prominent republicans that said they wouldn't vote for him even though he outspent the democrats by a fair bit. >
  
  
  I don’t think any amount of voting is going to help us move the dial  
  
  By voting we can hold bad politicians accountable, basically getting them fired and elect those that have a better track record.  
  The real problem is that people elect faces, so anyone who spends enough in being a familiar face and saying what masses want to hear they are pretty much guaranteed to get the job, and only lose if they get caught in a scandal.  
  Unfortunately people get the politicians they deserve, and as the US people worship money, your view is true, but only because of how people vote. >
  
  What is a single policy that the majority of the voting public wants that isn’t passed because of  the influence of money? >
  
  On most issues that voters are most motivated about, there are organizations lobbying on both sides of the issue.
  If politicians can choose either side of the issue and still get their campaign funded, then the people with the money don't have control of them.