Last November for example, there were 7 senate races that were considered "toss ups" i.e. too close to call by the pollsters just prior to the election.
They were Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Carolina. All monies considered, Dems out spent Reps in 6 of the 7, with the only exception being Mitch McConnell in KY. Republicans won all seven elections, even being outspent by 2-1 in three of them. In the case of KY, McConnell outspent his challenger, but won by a whopping 15%. Think money was the cause of his victory? Doubtful. I am not saying money is never a factor, but I don't think it is a major one as the candidate, the message, the policy positions, etc are much more influential and determinativeIt's something I would love to see, the mouse that roared versus the Lions with the dinero. The Koch Brothers have 10 times the money of Trump, but Trump's mouth and the attention he gets could squash any ads or commercials that they run against him.
But will Trump really go after the Koch and their interest in controlling the politics, will Trump go after the Koch's nominee, Scott Walker or Rubio or? Walker and Rubio one on one versus Trump won't stand a chance. Will Fox slowly distant themselves from Trump if Murdock decides enough is enough. And who will Sheldon Adelson back up?? This is gonn a be fun
There is also mention that Trump and the Kochs share a friendly business relationship.
Let's face it, with or without Koch, Trump has more than enough funds to do whatever the fuck he wants to do.
The real trick here is... how much of Koch money will wind up being used against Trump on behalf of whoever the Kochs do decide to support?
And then there is every Jew-haters favorite - Sheldon Adelson. He's pledged to give as much as $500 million of his own money to "the deserving candidate"... whoever that turns out to be. BTW - Adelson and The Donald also have an existing relationship.
Trump doesnt need Koch money to promote himself, but he could be harmed if it was used against him, complete with the vast network developed by the Kochs over the last few years.
Not that it will matter - by the time the General Election is held, I expect the political landscape to resemble scorched earth, with the average middle class American being the biggest loser
...How do you all feel about it? I'm from a country where firstly spending this type of money on an election campaign would be unthinkable, but secondly very, very illegal. I'm not suggesting that either way is right or wrong, I'm just curious as to your various stances on the subject. To me personally, I find it, I don't know, strange I guess? There is an argument to be made that even an absurd amount of money can't make the truly unelectable electable, but the amounts of cash being spoken about here are quite alarming. Are you not concerned that political power is (quite clearly and brazenly in some situations) bought rather than earned?
...in the Citizen's United case. The Court decided that corporations are people and that money = speech. If you're not familiar with our Constitution and can't find these principles, it's because they're in the part of the Constitution that's written in invisible Republican ink. You see, conservatives are "Originalists," i.e., they only believe in what's in the "four corners" of the original Constitution. If it ain't in there - tough titties. That's why they have their own invisible Constitution that only they can read and interpret.
Republicans were ecstatic over Citizen's United. They thought they could buy all elections. Fortunately (or unfortunately) Democrats have just as much money and are willing to spend it to influence elections as well.
......for much longer. Newt in 2012 had Casino Magnate Edelson backing him to the very end and this did not help Mitt at all. This time round we have more billionaires backing different candidates, which should make the Republican primaries very interesting.....lol
Republicans were ecstatic over Citizen's United. They thought they could buy all elections. Fortunately (or unfortunately) Democrats have just as much money and are willing to spend it to influence elections as well.
Last November for example, there were 7 senate races that were considered "toss ups" i.e. too close to call by the pollsters just prior to the election.
They were Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana and North Carolina.
All monies considered, Dems out spent Reps in 6 of the 7, with the only exception being Mitch McConnell in KY.
Republicans won all seven elections, even being outspent by 2-1 in three of them.
In the case of KY, McConnell outspent his challenger, but won by a whopping 15%.
Think money was the cause of his victory? Doubtful.
I am not saying money is never a factor, but I don't think it is a major one as the candidate, the message, the policy positions, etc are much more influential and determinative
If it were up to me, there would be no campagin funding by outside donors.
There would be no advertising, there would be no PACs and SuperPacs.
And there would be no electing of officials with criminal records beyond traffic tickets.
No drunk drivers, no spousal abusers, unlike our current Congress which includes the following:
(click on the link please)
...Wouldn't you love to see the President of the United States have to wear a baseball hat when it's windy so that his bird's nest hair doesn't get blown around? Trump would probably start wearing a stove pipe hat instead, claiming it's because he's an admirer of Lincoln.
and whack it around for a while! 
