I'm traveling through West Africa, I see the impact of unlimited money going into politics daily. It's not good.
> The most exciting and visible part of politics is the political campaign. Politicians and their team of strategists, pollsters, and surrogates wage battle for the votes of the public. Slogans are trumpeted. Gaffes are made. Tactics are deployed. > And it probably does not matter all that much. > At least not as much as the political environment matters. Presidential elections can be forecast with incredible accuracy well before the campaign really begins. In fact, if all you know is the state of the economy, you know pretty well how the incumbent party will do.
Trump spent less in the primaries than his opponents, and he spent less than Clinton in the election.
Money is a factor, but not the sole deciding factor.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/02/supr...
There's no limits on the amount of money outside groups can spend supporting a candidate, but they can't just give the money to the campaign run by the candidate, there are even rules (that people do essentially giggle about) forbidding coordination.
unlimited campaign contributions actually would benefit the US democracy because two parties have a stranglehold on seats. all their attempts to regulate campaign donations are nothing more than methods to prevent a third party (or more) from getting a foothold. there is little any third party can do when the established parties control the narrative if not the press but spend money to get notice. how best to keep them from that by simply selling "protection of your democratic rights by limiting campaign donations from overseas" Pretty sure they can market it well enough anyone would buy in.
don't assume unlimited money in elections is bad, what is bad is that precluding it is the first step in preventing additional parties to gain a foothold.
if we want to regulate campaign funds we should limit only the two largest parties and unlimited all others.