Comments on: Jon Corzine Fails to Buy New Jersey Election

By: RD

RD — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 19:59:32 +0000

Obviously it can’t be proven but when you outspend your opponent by over 100 million dollars and you manage to beat him by 6 paltry points, the advertising had to play a role in garnering at least some votes.

If advertising has NO effect on voting, then why do they spend all this money? They spend what they can for a reason Greg.

I simply find your position contradictory. On one hand, you “can’t” buy an election. On the other hand, there should be no limit on spending. If spending has NO effect on the vote, would the restrictions not be irrelevant?

I have a question. How does the state calculate the funding for a candidate?

By: Greg Farries

Greg Farries — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:21:19 +0000

Without that spending, he’d have most likely lost.

You got any proof of that? This is often the argument for campaign finance reform, that elections can somehow be bought. However, proponents of such measures rarely have solid evidence.

I look at the discrepancy and it tells me that Bloomberg isn’t particularly wise with his money. Of course, lets put this into perspective, he’s one of the richest men in the world – he dumped millions into this race and it was still a tight race.

This isn’t a classic case of money buying an election, it’s that money doesn’t matter.

Do you think if Bloomberg would have out-spent his oppenent 100-1 he would have beat the pants off of him? No, I doubt it, cause there is a point in which no amount of money will make a difference in an election.

The second you start placing restrictions on spending, you invite the state to begin funding campaigns – which is what we have in Canada. And once the state begins funding campaigns, it becomes a big advantage to the incumbent.

By: RD

RD — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 15:40:21 +0000

And yet, mayor Bloomberg was elected while outspending his opponent 14-1 with over 100 million of his own money. The margin of victory was something like 6 points.
Without that spending, he’d have most likely lost.

Elections can still be bought.

Campaign finance laws would actually help keep lobbies from controlling candidates no?

Take the US push for healthcare. Regardless of your position on the subject, Democrats were elected to a majority, and the overwhelming majority of their constituents support healthcare reform. However, when you look at the campaign contributions for many democrat Senators, it becomes increasingly clear that they cannot and will not vote for significant healthcare reform because they accepted truckloads of money from big insurance and big pharma.
The current system in the states certainly puts the voters in the back seat. I’m not sure if there is a similar impact in Canada.