That is some seriously sloppy "evidence" to be citing. It makes no reference to any accounting for the popularity of the candidates before and after ad campaig

That is some seriously sloppy "evidence" to be citing. It makes no reference to any accounting for the popularity of the candidates before and after ad campaigns, the competitiveness of their districts (for House campaigns), incumbent status, and so on. It also says > Also interesting is that this doesn't even include outside independent spending, like money from Super PACs. as if to imply outside spending (a) is totally proportional to direct campaign spending and (b) has the same effects, to the same degrees, as direct campaign spending, neither of which is necessarily true. > People who spend more money win. The shoddy evidence you cited directly contradicts your absolute. EDIT: toned down wording of the last sentence