Exclusive: Joseph Farah notes inverse correlation between campaign spending, votes cast

author-image JOSEPH FARAH

Why haven’t we seen that headline yet in 2016?

It’s a pretty big story, don’t you think?

It’s been a strange and wild presidential primary campaign season in both parties. But the biggest story hasn’t yet been reported – that money doesn’t buy votes any more.

For example, the Jeb Bush campaign spent over $30 million in the South Carolina primary. For that, he couldn’t break 10 percent of the vote. He’d spent a similar amount in New Hampshire with similar results. Realizing it’s not a matter of how much the campaign spends, he bowed out of the race last weekend.

It was only about six months ago the know-it-alls in the Republican Party were telling me this was Jeb Bush’s year. No one else had a chance.

Now let’s turn to the other party. Hillary Clinton was also supposed to be Miss Inevitability. Why? She had all the money. Just as the 2008 campaign was to end in her coronation, so was the 2016 primary.

But along came Bernie Sanders. Apparently, no one told him his candidacy was just for show purposes. He actually put together a grass-roots organization funded by grass-roots donors. The results have shocked the Democratic Party establishment as much as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz have traumatized the Republican National Committee.

For the two party establishments, 2016 has been a double whammy.

The rules have been rewritten.

Conventional wisdom has been confounded.

The political sages have been discombobulated.

Even the media have been perplexed, thunderstruck, astonished.

It’s a whole new ballgame. Comparing this election season with those of the past may be a waste of time. What’s happening is historic.

And it’s not just a matter of personalities.

Of course Donald Trump shook things up in a way no one could have foreseen. But does anyone really believe that it’s Bernie Sanders’ personality that has thrown the Democratic primaries into chaos and confusion?

What’s happening this year is truly the result of a spontaneous voter revolt.

Faced with the possibility of a Bush-Clinton rematch in 2016, Republicans and Democrats have both expressed a shocking amount of anger, exasperation and rejection.

The money couldn’t overcome the passion. And just so you don’t tell me, “But Donald Trump has all the money in the world to spend,” consider this: He has barely spent any yet. While Bush was spending $30-plus million in New Hampshire and another $30-plus million in South Carolina, the Trump campaign spent only about $1 million in each of those races.

It’s amazing really.

And with that small level of spending, Trump has dominated the election news cycle every day since he entered the race.

If anything, voters have rejected the ads and cast ballots on what they’re feeling in their gut.

Something new is truly happening here.

I know the news cycle has reported everything I’ve told you here, but they haven’t written the headline yet: Money can no longer buy elections.

You would think this would be good news.

You would think this would be shocking news.

It’s even more unbelievable when you consider Sanders is running a one-note-johnny campaign vilifying how money is corrupting politics in America. Yet, the success of his campaign is evidence to the contrary.

Now Sanders may not win. But it won’t be because he didn’t raise enough money. He is raising far more than Hillary. He probably won’t win because the Democratic Party’s corrupt rules and its establishment pre-determined the winner. That’s the only way Hillary wins – that and her uncanny ability to avoid indictment.

In 2016, there’s almost an inverse correlation between campaign spending and votes cast.

That may not carry over the general election, but you have to admit, this is a big, amazing and as-yet unheralded story.

Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *