It's Facebook you're talking about. I'm not sure why you'd think they would make the right choice instead of chasing $.

Do you think they favour a fair election over $$$? Do you think there is anything they favour over $$$ at this point?

I suspect the lead-up to an election is like the Christmas season for political advertisers. So, it's hard to look at it as "few months of revenue" when in fact it might count for the majority.

Right. It's either already decided and no money left to be had or not yet decided and the majority of the money is yet to be captured.

The mistake here is thinking that (generally speaking) allowing questionable behavior is a "whole of Facebook" decision.

Instead there is some VP in charge of "ad sales for mid-West US" who looks at their target numbers for a bonus, looks at the ~$100M+ spending planned by the campaigns in that area in the next month[1] and goes "I don't want to sell an election but it is and important free speech issue that campaigns are allowed to get their message across".

Stopping that is a decision that has to be made at the top, by one person who then needs to argue against a lot of people whose financial interest is in the opposite direction.

[1] https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/electio...