Do you have a dumb question that you're kind of embarrassed to ask in the main thread? Is there something you're just not sure about?
This is your opportunity to ask questions. No question too simple or too silly.
Culture war topics are accepted, and proposals for a better intro post are appreciated.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
What do we know about the effectiveness of donating money to political parties and campaigns?
What I'm getting at is - I often hear about "Candidate X is out-fundraising Candidate Y 2 to 1," or something like that. But how relevant is that to political outcomes? It occurs to me that I can't see the direction of the causal arrow here. Couldn't it just mean that Candidate X is already more popular, and therefore raises more money? What is that money used for?
If I want Candidate X to win, does it follow that I should donate money to that candidate or to their party? If I wanted the Democratic Party to win in my area - should I donate money to them? Does it matter at all? I just can't quite see the relationship of my donating money to achieving my desired political outcomes.
My understanding of the political science consensus is basically that: funds raised is just another way to measure popularity like polling numbers (with the obvious skew of people with more money and more willing to give it to candidates getting weighted heavier); the actual things the money is spent on doesn't seem to make a huge impact on election results.
As the other commenters mention, this might not be true in narrow situations like early on in a primary to a non-well-known candidate.
More options
Context Copy link
You're going to get the most bang for your buck donating to very local candidates very early. A little cash, even a few hundred dollars, to a county executive campaign in the primary can make life a lot easier. A boat load of cash to a Senate candidate in the general won't make any difference.
More options
Context Copy link
Scott’s written about it more than once!
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/19/plutocracy-isnt-about-money/
https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/09/18/too-much-dark-money-in-almonds/
My conclusion is that spending on campaigns is pretty inefficient. There’s got to be a breakpoint somewhere, such that minimum wage laborers can’t expect to survive running for President. Once you cross that threshold, though, additional money isn’t worth too much.
Spending on lobbying might do better, or maybe it’s just perceived as better, but still won’t cause any landslide changes. Elites spend more on politics than proles, probably because of diminishing marginal value—politics is a bit of a luxury cause. But they don’t outspend to the level you’d expect if they could outright buy legislation.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link