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.

▲

roguecoder 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

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-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 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

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_e...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Palmer

▲

thijson 2 days ago | parent [-]

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 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		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-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.)