3 ms·

I think the degree to which money swings general elections is vastly overrated and would love to see your evidence to the contrary. No amount of spending will

I think the degree to which money swings general elections is vastly overrated and would love to see your evidence to the contrary. No amount of spending will get you a democrat senator in Texas, for instance.

awesome_dude 11mo ago
And there were a number of State supreme court elections that were alleged to have heavy monetary investment from a couple of billionaires that did not end up working in their favour.[1] For that matter there is an Australian billionaire whose "investment" also does not appear to have worked in his favour [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Wisconsin_Supreme_Court_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Wisconsin_Supreme_Court_e... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Palmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Palmer
- thijson 11mo ago
  I read somewhere that Rupert Murdoch was able to swing some elections a while ago in Australia and the UK. That was through his media ownership though.
  - roguecoder 11mo ago
    The toxic impact of Fox News is longitudinal, rather than being about a single election, and mostly acts by pushing conservative parties to the far right: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/fox-news-incomparable-role-on-the-political-right/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/fox-news-incomparable-rol... There are other ways for money to impact politics beyond individual general elections. As well as funding community organizing and creating long-term propaganda, it's much easier to impact ballot initiatives (paid signature gathering works, for example, where paid canvassers don't.)
roguecoder 11mo ago
It is less that it swings elections, though it has marginal effects via voter mobilization, and more that it keeps candidates from even running at all: https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/money-doesnt-buy-elections-it-does https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/money-doesnt-buy-elect... Money won't get you a Democratic senator in Texas, but it makes you 100x more likely to get you a Republican lawyer than an average Republican.

awesome_dude 11mo ago

And there were a number of State supreme court elections that were alleged to have heavy monetary investment from a couple of billionaires that did not end up working in their favour.[1] For that matter there is an Australian billionaire whose "investment" also does not appear to have worked in his favour [2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Wisconsin_Supreme_Court_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Wisconsin_Supreme_Court_e... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Palmer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Palmer

thijson 11mo ago
I read somewhere that Rupert Murdoch was able to swing some elections a while ago in Australia and the UK. That was through his media ownership though.
- roguecoder 11mo ago
  The toxic impact of Fox News is longitudinal, rather than being about a single election, and mostly acts by pushing conservative parties to the far right: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/fox-news-incomparable-role-on-the-political-right/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/fox-news-incomparable-rol... There are other ways for money to impact politics beyond individual general elections. As well as funding community organizing and creating long-term propaganda, it's much easier to impact ballot initiatives (paid signature gathering works, for example, where paid canvassers don't.)

roguecoder 11mo ago

It is less that it swings elections, though it has marginal effects via voter mobilization, and more that it keeps candidates from even running at all: https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/money-doesnt-buy-elections-it-does https://data4democracy.substack.com/p/money-doesnt-buy-elect... Money won't get you a Democratic senator in Texas, but it makes you 100x more likely to get you a Republican lawyer than an average Republican.