Replies

[I have no idea.]

That's pretty clear.

"Table 4 lists average expenditure levels of winning House and Senate candidates, in current and constant 1996 dollars. Data for winning candidates only may provide the best gauge of the level of funding needed for congressional races, i.e., what it costs to win a House or Senate seat. On the House side, the average winner spent $680,000 in 1996, a 682% rise from the $87,000 in 1976, a higher rate of increase than among all candidates (in Table 3). Average spending for Senate winners rose from $609,000 to $3.8 million during this period,"

3.8 Million dollars in 1996, 11 years ago.

Elections are a pay to play poker game and the cost of running a campaign and sitting at the table are pretty much the same regardless of whether there's an R, D, or any other letter of the alphabet following the name of the candidate/player.

I'm still hoping that the internet and sites like FR will be able to cut a few of the strings attached to the chairs at the table.

TRUTH has no strings attached except the honor of those who face it.

Veritas x Honor.