It’s a money aristocratic system, and that’s really bad for anyone not belonging to the aristocracy.
And if they continue on this path, we might see heads roll.
Consider that Hillary outspent Trump 2:1 in the 2016 election, and lost. Same story in 2024, Trump was way outspent by Harris. Harris lost.
Advertising doesn't work if the message is bad.
Oddly, basically everyone says this about advertising in general, and yet it consumes approx 3% of world GDP.
You can't have it both ways, (i) free market is ideal and efficient. Prices are correct and fair etc etc (ii) But doesn't apply to campaign spending.
All those checks to business owners and farmers. Huge slush funds.
Californians used it to buy houses in smaller cities across the country.
Not doubled but a windfall of cash into accounts for the wealthy none the less.
Since that doesn't happen, there's not much point in worrying about the consequences. Here's why it doesn't happen:
The value of something is determined by what someone else is willing to pay for it. There would be nothing to sustain a wealth doubling, because there wouldn't be anyone willing to pay for it.