“More generally, I think it’s quite misleading to think in terms of buying votes. (In retrospect, Carrick wouldn’t have won even if he had $100M.)”
I think people are confused about the difference between a PAC spending money, and Carrick’s campaign having money. Because of rules about donations and coordination, money given To Carrick’s campaign was far more helpful. Ad of the end of April, his campaign has raised just under $1m. That’s a lot, but Salinas, who won, had raised $600k by then, and 2 other candidates who lost had raised even more, or lent their campaign the money, which is allowed—so it’s not nearly the same outsized advantage as it seems when you talk about PAC spending.
I think people are confused about the difference between a PAC spending money, and Carrick’s campaign having money.
I agree, and you’re right that my comment could have been clearer. (Regardless, my point was that here and in other posts people are talking about ‘how much votes cost’ in an incautious manner, and e.g. the fact that there was much less pro-Salinas spending per Salinas vote than pro-Carrick spending per Carrick vote doesn’t mean that pro-Salinas spending was more effective.)
money given To Carrick’s campaign was far more helpful.
I’m curious how much more helpful you think it is; I would have thought <2x. The fact that campaigns sometimes spend money on basically the same thing PACs would—ads—seems to suggest that marginal campaign spending can’t be much more effective (or campaigns wouldn’t buy ads).
“More generally, I think it’s quite misleading to think in terms of buying votes. (In retrospect, Carrick wouldn’t have won even if he had $100M.)”
I think people are confused about the difference between a PAC spending money, and Carrick’s campaign having money. Because of rules about donations and coordination, money given To Carrick’s campaign was far more helpful. Ad of the end of April, his campaign has raised just under $1m. That’s a lot, but Salinas, who won, had raised $600k by then, and 2 other candidates who lost had raised even more, or lent their campaign the money, which is allowed—so it’s not nearly the same outsized advantage as it seems when you talk about PAC spending.
I agree, and you’re right that my comment could have been clearer. (Regardless, my point was that here and in other posts people are talking about ‘how much votes cost’ in an incautious manner, and e.g. the fact that there was much less pro-Salinas spending per Salinas vote than pro-Carrick spending per Carrick vote doesn’t mean that pro-Salinas spending was more effective.)
I’m curious how much more helpful you think it is; I would have thought <2x. The fact that campaigns sometimes spend money on basically the same thing PACs would—ads—seems to suggest that marginal campaign spending can’t be much more effective (or campaigns wouldn’t buy ads).