The "Money in Politics" Argument Was Killed by Hillary Clinton

For a very long time we’ve been assured that money in politics is a bad thing. We’ve been lectured that money buys elections, and buys politicians. We’ve been attacked by “Campaign Finance Reform” laws that strip us of our first amendment rights, and efforts to pass more of them.


But Hillary Clinton has blown all those arguments right out of the water. Repeal Campaign Finance regulations now.

Hillary Clinton raised a lot of money: just short of $500 million dollars in fact. She spent $435 million of that, leaving herself more cash on hand at the end of the campaign ($62 million) than any third party candidate raised in total. Donald Trump raised about half of what Clinton raised: just under $250 million. He spent $230 million, leaving himself $16 million in cash and $2 million in debt. Hillary Clinton had an overwhelming advantage in the direct campaign battle, raising $250 million more and spending $204 million more. (Bet she wishes she spent that $50 million in Wisconsin.)

Outside groups increased Clinton’s advantage, raising over $130 million more for her than they did for Trump, and spending about $133 million more. As a result, Hillary Clinton had a $640 million to $302 million advantage in money spent to get her elected President, and she lost.


Not only did Hillary Clinton lose, the Democrat ticket lost ground from 2012 in 39 states. She won the popular vote, yes, but New York and California are not a winning electoral strategy, and she lost a lot of votes in New York that Barack Obama won anyway.

The 2016 election has proved beyond any doubt that overwhelming money advantages don’t swing elections, therefore the idea that we must have strict controls over campaign spending, and in particular that there’s something unfair about the Citizens United decision, has been refuted.

Repeal campaign finance laws today. Hillary Clinton’s loss proved them unnecessary.


Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Trending on RedState Videos