Here is what I consider a quality article that mostly agrees/echo's what you said: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-

Here is what I consider a quality article that mostly agrees/echo's what you said: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-complicated-love-story/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/money-and-elections-a-c... The article mostly agrees with you on the topic of the general election, but as you travel down the dependency chain (general election depends on primary depends on fundraising depends on capability to run), it becomes clear that money matters more. Effectiveness of spending at the roots of the dependency tree offers disproportionate effect on the final candidate choices in the general election, a general election that is likely already pre-decided based on demographic make up of constituents. So money's effect on the general election in many ways doesn't matter if money can decide who can even be an option in the primary, or which candidates can have their names heard before the primary. Excerpts from the article: > But in 2017, Bonica published a study that found, unlike in the general election, early fundraising strongly predicted who would win primary races. > Another example of where money might matter: Determining who is capable of running for elected office to begin with. Ongoing research from Alexander Fouirnaies, professor of public policy at the University of Chicago, suggests that, as it becomes normal for campaigns to spend higher and higher amounts, fewer people run and more of those who do are independently wealthy. In other words, the arms race of unnecessary campaign spending could help to enshrine power among the well-known and privileged. > The best time to donate is early on in the primary, Bonica said, when out-of-the-gate boosts in fundraising can play a big, causal role in deciding who makes it to the general election.