This type of election shows why campaign finance reform is unnecessary. Money is to winning elections what power is to attaining the speed of light. The more you spend, the less value each subsequent dollar brings to the table.
Fact is, once you have enough to effectively get your message out there, spending more than that can actually have a negative perception effect. And we’ve recently seen that happen. The big spender lost in a couple of statewide elections.
I like to ask this question: If he were alive and free today, how much money would it take to get Hitler elected head of Israel? Think of that as actually attaining the speed of light. :)
Social media and the internet have made money far less important than in the past.
“Once a person knows the truth, you can never make them ignorant again” - Thomas Paine.
I think this type of election shows why repealing the 17th amendment is important.
First, repealing the 17th amendment is the most elegant form of campaign finance reform because it eliminates the campaigns by eliminating the elections.
Second, it would reduce the effect of someone like McConnell from Kentucky in the selection of a Senator from Alabama.
Third, assuming for this exercise that the Alabama legislature would have chosen from among Luther Strange, Roy Moore, and Mo Brooks, who would they have selected? I honestly don't know the local politics, but it's a choice between the appointed incumbent, a Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, and an elected member of the House of Representatives.
-PJ