3 ms·

As you noted, it's a complicated relationship [1], consequently the only place we'd be likely to see a reliable result is in aggregate. Correlation is not caus

by ethbro 8y ago

As you noted, it's a complicated relationship [1], consequently the only place we'd be likely to see a reliable result is in aggregate. Correlation is not causation, but congressional campaigns in 2012 that outspent their opponent won 91% of the time [2]. One of the clearer links is to voter turnout. I've read it takes between $5-20 to reliably motivate a voter to vote. Sans this minimum level of funding, your supporters don't go to the polls, and you don't win. As for the 2016 election you note, general consensus is that the difference in funding was largely erased by media time (itself one of the primary reasons to spend money in the first place!), where Trump's approach held a clear (and cheap) advantage [3]. More broadly speaking, post-Citizens, we're in an era where we actually don't know how much "money with intent of political influence" is being spent. It's legally debatable enough that a group can now say, "This is my personal or commercial speech, so I'm not registering with the FEC." [1] http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/ http://freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign-sp... [2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/?utm_term=.b8b66c8a91a0 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/th... [3] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/election-2016-trump-fewer-donors-provided-more-of-the-cash/ https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/04/election-2016-trump...

smsm42 8y ago
> Sans this minimum level of funding, your supporters don't go to the polls, and you don't win. Ah, of course, you have the minimum funding to get your message out, I do not doubt that for a minute. There's a minimum level beyond which you can not mount a successful campaign. But beyond that level, the link between dollars and votes becomes much less direct and obvious. > general consensus is that the difference in funding was largely erased by media time Yeah, of course, Trump used this trick. But the next one might use another trick. The common thread is that there are many ways to conduct the campaign, and dollars alone do not mean victory. > we're in an era where we actually don't know how much "money with intent of political influence" is being spent. Not exactly, but organizations with influence on national scale are not exactly invisible, and their ad spending is not secret too. I mean, you can't exactly hide a public electoral ad, right? And knowing how much ads were run (public info) and what is a typical spot price for an ad (public info), and the same for rallies, etc. one can estimate the spending if not entirely accurately, then with enough accuracy to be able to reason about it, I think. Of course, this does not account for things like free airtime given by networks to a popular entertaining personality or other ways to buy exposure for cheap, but this only underlines the point that dollars is not everything.
- ethbro 8y ago
  Granted on your first two comments. But something not guaranteeing success doesn't mean it doesn't make it more likely. As for advertising dollars, you could absolutely hide a public ad in 2016 by buying through Facebook, not declaring yourself, and targeting a subset of users. And Citizens even gives you (not great, but some) legal cover if you're caught. "My ad was an artistic work sharing my own viewpoint." Done. State / city level, but someone else tuned me into this still running, funny-but-not-funny story in Seattle, in which an reporter decided to walk up to Facebook and Google and ask for election transparency documents they were legally obligated to provide under a 1977 city law. Tl;dr, they didn't keep relevant records, didn't have any idea about the law, and are still scrambling to be compliant. https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/12/04/25606100/were-asking-the-tech-giants-to-comply-with-seattles-law-on-political-ad-transparency-will-they https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/12/04/25606100/were-as...
  - smsm42 8y ago
    > Tl;dr, they didn't keep relevant records, didn't have any idea about the law, and are still scrambling to be compliant. I find it fascinating that the implication is the global company has to be aware of and compliant with any city law that any tiny city council (I am not saying Seattle is tiny, but if Seattle can do it, why Rusty Sticks, Flyover State can't?) passed 40 years ago. I seriously wonder how one can do business in such environment? I guess for a Facebook it's just breadcrumbs and they could hire whatever lawyers needed to fend it off and pay whatever fines they might be assigned without even flinching - but imagine you are just a startup and you have to comply with the same web of laws?

by ethbro 8y ago

smsm42 8y ago

> Sans this minimum level of funding, your supporters don't go to the polls, and you don't win. Ah, of course, you have the minimum funding to get your message out, I do not doubt that for a minute. There's a minimum level beyond which you can not mount a successful campaign. But beyond that level, the link between dollars and votes becomes much less direct and obvious. > general consensus is that the difference in funding was largely erased by media time Yeah, of course, Trump used this trick. But the next one might use another trick. The common thread is that there are many ways to conduct the campaign, and dollars alone do not mean victory. > we're in an era where we actually don't know how much "money with intent of political influence" is being spent. Not exactly, but organizations with influence on national scale are not exactly invisible, and their ad spending is not secret too. I mean, you can't exactly hide a public electoral ad, right? And knowing how much ads were run (public info) and what is a typical spot price for an ad (public info), and the same for rallies, etc. one can estimate the spending if not entirely accurately, then with enough accuracy to be able to reason about it, I think. Of course, this does not account for things like free airtime given by networks to a popular entertaining personality or other ways to buy exposure for cheap, but this only underlines the point that dollars is not everything.

ethbro 8y ago
Granted on your first two comments. But something not guaranteeing success doesn't mean it doesn't make it more likely. As for advertising dollars, you could absolutely hide a public ad in 2016 by buying through Facebook, not declaring yourself, and targeting a subset of users. And Citizens even gives you (not great, but some) legal cover if you're caught. "My ad was an artistic work sharing my own viewpoint." Done. State / city level, but someone else tuned me into this still running, funny-but-not-funny story in Seattle, in which an reporter decided to walk up to Facebook and Google and ask for election transparency documents they were legally obligated to provide under a 1977 city law. Tl;dr, they didn't keep relevant records, didn't have any idea about the law, and are still scrambling to be compliant. https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/12/04/25606100/were-asking-the-tech-giants-to-comply-with-seattles-law-on-political-ad-transparency-will-they https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2017/12/04/25606100/were-as...
- smsm42 8y ago
  > Tl;dr, they didn't keep relevant records, didn't have any idea about the law, and are still scrambling to be compliant. I find it fascinating that the implication is the global company has to be aware of and compliant with any city law that any tiny city council (I am not saying Seattle is tiny, but if Seattle can do it, why Rusty Sticks, Flyover State can't?) passed 40 years ago. I seriously wonder how one can do business in such environment? I guess for a Facebook it's just breadcrumbs and they could hire whatever lawyers needed to fend it off and pay whatever fines they might be assigned without even flinching - but imagine you are just a startup and you have to comply with the same web of laws?