Are Your Views on Campaign Spending Deduced from the Evidence?

[Nous]

Yes, I'm up to the number 5. I suspect you will continue to help me learn where these number keys are.

Maybe some day, if you try really hard, you'll be able to read and understand words such as these:

Policy Consequences of Campaign Contributions

Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.[4] Of course, if candidates choose their policy positions in anticipation of a subsequent payoff in campaign contributions, there would be no real distinction between accepting bribes and accepting contributions from like-minded voters. However, studies of legislative behavior indicate that the most important determinants of an incumbent’s voting record are constituent interests, party, and personal ideology.​

Campaign Finance: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

 

[Koldo]

That demonstrates that the integrity of elections is radically different in Brazil and the US. Offhand I can't think of a single case, at least in the past few decades, in which a major donor to a predidential election was found to involved in a corruption scandal.

What were these corrupton scandals?

As I have said, I don't think humans are all that different just because they live in different countries.
Even if corruption itself is not common in USA, I find it rather naive to assume the biggest donators aren't acting out of self-interest. That's the least you should expect.

 

[Nakosis]

Maybe some day, if you try really hard, you'll be able to read and understand words such as these:

Policy Consequences of Campaign Contributions

Are campaign contributions the functional equivalent of bribes? The conventional wisdom is that donors must get something for their money, but decades of academic research on Congress has failed to uncover any systematic evidence that this is so. Indeed, legislators tend to act in accordance with the interests of their donors, but this is not because of some quid pro quo. Instead, donors tend to give to like-minded candidates.[4] Of course, if candidates choose their policy positions in anticipation of a subsequent payoff in campaign contributions, there would be no real distinction between accepting bribes and accepting contributions from like-minded voters. However, studies of legislative behavior indicate that the most important determinants of an incumbent’s voting record are constituent interests, party, and personal ideology.​

Campaign Finance: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

Well, I was going to give you 1/2 a point off for effort even though this was an obvious to deflect any accountability of your claims by attacking the credibility of mine, but still, a good effort.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to locate the 5.5 key.

In the meantime, whilst I look for that darn key, you might consider reviewing some scholarly articles.

The quest for money tilts candidates' priorities and policy stands. Countless hours spent grubbing for money from affluent contributors changes candidates' priorities and sense of constituent needs. As they speak with potential donors, candidates hear repeatedly about resentment of progressive taxes and "wasteful" social spending. Special tax breaks for corporations and hedge fund managers start to sound reasonable.

How Money Corrupts American Politics | Scholars Strategy Network

 

[Koldo]

What were these corrupton scandals?

Going through each of them would be such a hassle. And I don't think there would be a much point in doing so.
To simplify the matter: They mostly involved bribing people to get money from the government through fraudulent bidding processes to be awarded contracts.

 

[Nous]

In the meantime, whilst I look for that darn key, you might consider reviewing some scholarly articles.

The quest for money tilts candidates' priorities and policy stands. Countless hours spent grubbing for money from affluent contributors changes candidates' priorities and sense of constituent needs. As they speak with potential donors, candidates hear repeatedly about resentment of progressive taxes and "wasteful" social spending. Special tax breaks for corporations and hedge fund managers start to sound reasonable.

How Money Corrupts American Politics | Scholars Strategy Network

That isn't a "scholarly article". The author does not cite a single item of scientific evidence or anything in the peer-reviewed literature that substantiates his claims.

 

[Nous]

Going through each of them would be such a hassle. And I don't think there would be a much point in doing so.
To simplify the matter: They mostly involved bribing people to get money from the government through fraudulent bidding processes to be awarded contracts.

Not to imply anything about Brazil here (I love Brazil; my husband's grandfather is from Brazil), but I'm sure you know as well as I that the governments in some countries run by graft. I lived in Sri Lanka for a while many years ago, and the way you get something done by a government employee, or the way you get a government agency to begin moving, is to give the right person a little money. I think most of the world's people do not live in such countries. And my discussion here is limited to the US. I make no claims about campaign financing or spending outside of the US.