Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 and it did nothing. In a communication age they are going to have to work out different ways to teach the public how they are supposed to vote

But Bruce's point about the state level and the redistricting is a good one. Money makes a difference there because the press doesn't report on that level as much as the nonstop Trump/Clinton coverage for a year at the national level.

It's not about who gets elected, it's about who they're beholden to once they get into office.

What do congress critters do in DC? Write and read proposed bills? Hammer out the nuances of legislation? Hell no, they have a huge staff smarties and flunkies to do that, and boil it down to one paragraph explanations. No, the elected elite spend the bulk of their time on the phone lining up money for their reelection. Selling futures as it were.

Way more money goes to incumbents who are guaranteed re-election... that's how you know it's not really about swaying votes...

Incumbents who spent their term selling their soul. What do they do with that "way more money"? they spend it getting reelected.

In modern days, most incumbent candidates don't need to spend anything to get reelected - so where is the money going?

http://cellar.org/2017/incumbents.png

source

If so many people are unhappy with the government, congressional approval rating is so low, how do these clowns keep getting reelected if not money?
Somebody else's clown must be the problem, it's not my clown?

Exactly.

I think a lot of it is considered to be name recognition.

The name that got elected, people have heard of that name; but the challenger, not so much.

What does your chart have to do with the money that is received by incumbents? Are you saying they don't get any money?

Despite almost always winning their elections, incumbents by and far raise more money than challengers. Incumbents raise more than candidates for open seats.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php

And if you click on "breakdown by party" you see that Democrats raised over twice as much money per candidate for their Challenger and Open Seat opponents.

It didn't work; question remains; is money effective in getting votes?

Granted, but except the few who are indicted for misappropriation, don't they use these war chests to get reelected? Money = votes.

Yes, when spent purchasing support from a Russian President.