HERE is why HRC's $$$ will NOT buy this election.

[Divernan]

This extensive interview is quite revealing - I'm just posting his comments on money in campaigns - he also does a brilliant explanation of lobbying's corrupting impact on politicians. "He" is Bruce Bartlett, the historian and former member of the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations who has since become one of movement conservatism’s most scathing critics.

http://www.salon.com/2015/05/14/utter_insanity_and_stupidity_ex_reagan_adviser_unloads_on_gop_lobbyists_and_the_myth_of_the_moderate_republican/

Q. - Does your skepticism apply beyond presidential campaigns? The idea that the impact of money is overstated when it’s a high-profile race is pretty mainstream; but do you take it further?

A - Well, in general, I think that people overestimate the value of money in politics. I think that there is a threshold effect; that is to say, you need a minimum amount to be competitive. And I think up to a certain point, in any given race, there’s enormous value to each additional dollar that is raised, because it will be spent efficiently in increased votes. But I do think that there is a point at which it levels off and at which point each additional dollar doesn’t really help very much, if at all. I think that there’s also a downward point at which you have too much money, and you actually start alienating potential voters by running too many ads, doing too much stuff that just alienates, irritates them, so you actually end up being worse off.

Q. - Why do you think that understanding is not reflected more in political analysis?

A. - I think campaign consultants basically know this, but there’s an enormous bias in the system. That results from the fact that basically campaign consultants make their money, by running as many ads as you can possibly raise the money to run. I’m not sure how many contributors really understand how the system operates.

See, what happens is, these consultants, they own the advertising companies that buy the advertising time and so they get a commission of like 15 percent on every dollar of advertising that a campaign buys. The more advertising that they buy, the more money that goes into their pockets. So it’s in their interests to keep buying more and more advertising, long past the point at which diminishing returns have set in . I’m not sure very many contributors understand this; and also I think candidates are just sort of conditioned to believe that more is always better. Advertising is something you can do pretty easily these days. You can cut an ad today and have it on the air tonight. It’s something you can always do right up to the very last minute that you think might help and probably won’t hurt. So there’s always tremendous pressure inside the system to keep doing more and as long as there’s somebody out there willing to write the check, there really isn’t any way of stopping it.

Q. - When Jeb Bush’s campaign was still more of a rumor than an unofficial reality, I heard murmurings from within GOP circles that the folks most enthusiastic about him running were campaign consultants and the very people who you’re talking about.

A. - I’ve often used this analogy: The whole campaign finance racket is a bit like the “Producers.” You’re selling hundreds of percents of the candidate, but the difference is that, in the “Producers,” you had to actually distribute profits at the end of the day, and there weren’t enough profits to go around. But with a campaign, it comes to an end at some point and you either win or you lose. Some campaign contributor is not going to look at a campaign after the campaign is over to audit the books and see whether the money was spent efficiently or even to see how his own contributions were spent; they simply don’t care. They probably wouldn’t have any legal standing to look into these things anyway. It’s just really a system that is ripe for corruption and waste and inefficiency.

[ion_theory]

1. And on top of that the main stream

media compounds the issue because they are the ones receiving over half of all the money spent on the campaign. It's this damn reality TV politics that is ruining this country. Just tell me who you are, what you've done for society, and your ACTUAL plan to increase health and happiness for ALL citizens of the country. How people cannot see through the mess that is our political system astonishes me.

[Enthusiast]

2. You gave your own good answer already. People cannot see through the mess because

the main stream media compounds the issue because they receive over half of all the money spent on the campaign.

The media won't ask the questions we need and want.

It's all smoke and mirrors.

[Thespian2]

3. I worked in Jimmy Carter's first campaign...

to win, Carter and his team had to have huge numbers of people like me and my wife who pounded the pavement, door-to-door, to give voters a chance to know the man we wanted to be president...

Bernie, I think, is following the same route...enough dedicated workers will win over too much money...

Think of it...just the Koch brothers are willing to spend up to a billion dollars to buy the presidency...or in terms of their worth, they don't mind donating their lunch money...

The deciding factor in this election may be the method of voting...enough money can make the machines vote for the "right" candidate...