Well except that studies indicate that money does not win elections, but is correlated to favored candidates.

A candidate with greater favor gets more contributions, they then spend more money, however just spending money does not win elections. Privately wealthy candidates who have outspent the favored candidate didn't win even when they outspent the competition by orders of magnitude.

ie, money is not what wins elections. Money is a byproduct of a candidates popular favor and there is no incentive to not spend all of the money.

Certainly there is a threshold that must be reached to "get the word out".

Also clearly if I choose to speak at the media level I need money in order to do so.

These facts however do not mean that money wins elections.

IMHO the money that needs regulation is after an election when an official has the post, and the ability to trade favors for finance. Laws are already on the books, what we need is solid enforcement where the prosecutors are protected from the political elites influence.

Spider,

I have no idea what you're going on about. I simply pointed out something that is true. The mumbo jumbo afterwards is just that.

--

Bushido,

I've seen the studies which clearly indicate a monetary advantage - not a gaurantee. Not saying that money wins elections. I clearly indicated otherwise actually - in the long post. Only saying that the rules of campaign finance have changed dramatically since that particular ruling. That ruling greatly increases the odds for political corruption, and it needs to be argued better and overturned.

Something is wrong here, Bushido, that's all I'm pointing out.

I am not clear here.

1. A corporation can donate money to a candidate's campaign. With the same limit imposed as on a private citizen. Any citizen can set up any number of corporations and use the max limit, to maximize his budget to donate to election purposes.
2. A corporation can donate money to a candidate's campaign, with no limit imposed.

I scratch my head. Which party or which candidate within a party has more money behind him? They made the process so that it will gobble up more money in one month of an election than the entire medicare budget for a country like Canada.

They increased the spending limit to no top limit, but I question if that is going to make a difference.

Because...
Democrats and Republicans amongst the midsts of the American people have about the same amount of money to spend on things like this.

So this spiel will help whom? The Television advertising industry.

The legistlation changed nothing, except it put bread, lots of bread, back in the pantry of the copy writer and tv industries.