Ahh it was freakanomics here we go...
"Candidate A wins by 20 points and outspends Candidate B by 50 percent, it might be natural to assume that it was the money that made the difference. But how do you really know? It is hard to separate a candidate’s natural appeal from the appeal that is created by spending money on organization, ads, etc. So by measuring repeat challengers — i.e., races in which the candidates’ natural appeal stayed more or less constant — Levitt was able to isolate the impact of the money.
Here’s how we wrote up the results:
[T]he amount of money spent by the candidates hardly matters at all. A winning candidate can cut his spending in half and lose only 1 percent of the vote. Meanwhile, a losing candidate who doubles his spending can expect to shift the vote in his favor by only that same 1 percent.
What really matters for a political candidate is not how much you spend; what matters is who you are."
So according to them, massive campaign spending isn't so much the cause of voting, but the EFFECT of people wanting to vote for you.
