Advertising (i.e. money) has limited power, the true power, the true currency of politics is votes.
Advertising gets votes, ergo it is a distinction without a difference.
You are missing my point. Expensive media campaigns (ie. money) only persuades the indifferent and the uninterested. If you can convince a person that something matter, get them interested, then the media campaign will not change their mind no matter how much money you throw into it. That is why money is inferior to votes.
Advertising doesn't get all or even most votes but it doesn't have to. It merely has to get enough to tip the election which advertising demonstrably can do. You will not find one person who has been involved with an actual campaign who will tell you money doesn't matter. It's not the end-all-be-all but it matters quite a lot.
Ask someone in an actual campaign if they fear, in he U.S., the NRA or AARP because of their money or because of their motivated voters who are highly likely to show up on election day. These two lobbyists are the most powerful in the country because of their motivated members not because of campaign contribution.
A motivated and well informed voter is not swayed by advertising. Only the indifferent or disinterested are swayed by advertising.
First off I guarantee you that a well informed voter can sometimes be swayed by advertising. Happens all the time. Second, there are LOTS of disinterested voters out there.
Of course there are. That is why the 1%'ers have more political power than the 99%'ers. My point is that the 99%'s delude themselves if they think the problem is money. The problem is their own indifference.
One of the biggest ways that this indifference manifests is in party loyalty. If you vote for your party rather than candidates, including other party candidates, then you can be ignored. Your party already has your vote so you can be ignored. The other party can not get your vote so you can be ignored. Roughly 2/3's of U.S. voters remove themselves from the game through party loyalty, being part of the loyal base.
I am regularly asked to vote for local officials who I know absolutely nothing about and even when I care I simply have limited time and motivation to learn about them. People demonstrably tend to vote for people they've heard of over those they haven't regardless of their actual positions on issues. That's how incumbents tend to get re-elected. Guess what a really good way to hear about someone is? Advertising!
Actually its a pretty poor way to get informed, the info is highly biased or misleading.
In the U.S. recently an upstart college professor spent $100,000 in an election and defeated a power incumbent who spent $5,000,000. The professor had motivated voters, the incumbent had money.
That's pretty much the exception that proves the rule. You neglected to point out that the incumbent was a high ranking member of congress who had spent relatively little time campaigning in his district. He screwed up. No amount of money will help you if you don't actually pay attention to what matters.
Actually it proves my point. The winner tapped into a groundswell of motivated voters who were really pissed off. It was not simply that the loser didn't spend enough time in his district. If anything is exceptional in this case it was a large number of motivated voters showing up on election day, that is the formula for reform, for the 99%'era to regain control. Because the true currency of politics is votes.