> But if nothing else, we can assume that there's less money in politics because campaigns are less expensive. I don't think this is self-evident even for mone

> But if nothing else, we can assume that there's less money in politics because campaigns are less expensive. I don't think this is self-evident even for money, if the money is simply being spent in ways that can't be tallied. It's even less assured for all undue influence, including insider networks of non-financial favor-trading – as you note in your (fairly cynical!) observation that "the key to becoming French president is basically being friends with Xavier Niel". Is that really tangibly better than overt, measurable money influence from many competing sources? It's possible the low (above-board) spending totals are really a negative indicator: evidence that a de-facto cartel has enough levers to repel challenges without explicit cash outlays. When spending on wages seems suspiciously low, as with American college athletes or French IT workers, it's not a sure sign evil money has been kept out of a lily-pure process, but rather that insufficient competition has kept all the real money/power with secure incumbents. I am not an expert on French politics, but from the outside it seems just as protetive of traditional elite/insider interests as politics elsewhere. Maybe more so!