> If you start looking at "candidate spend" vs "results" you get metrics that .... people don't want to talk about

Not if you correct for incumbency. The thing people want to talk about is that money buys elections.

The whole point is that “money buys elections” is what’s under discussion - is it true? Does it, or does the money spent, even if it correlates, not cause?

	▲	JumpCrisscross an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> whole point is that “money buys elections” is what’s under discussion - is it true? No. What is true is candidates and NGOs push this angle, and folks who lose elections like it as an explanation for why they aren’t represented.