Question

Does spending the most money usually result in an election victory?

Answer 1

No, but there are arguments that are concerned that it can pose a danger to the democratic process. Essentially, the more money you have, the more press you can buy up (television ads, print ads, posters, billboards, etc.) to grab as many eyeballs as possible to convince them that you are the right person for the job. Whether you might have the right qualifications or would even do a good job is completely different story. That's why you might hear people say that candidates with enough money can "buy" their way into office.

There are a few of those floating around where people were elected based on their popularity and who were backed by a lot of money that proved to be terrible choices in the end. On the other hand, there are a few that proved that they were good at what they did, too.

Answer 2

Just to add a bit more to my answer with two examples -- in the recent Presidential election, you had Mitt Romney, a rich businessman, versus an incumbent, Barack Obama, who ultimately won. Then there was the story of Linda McMahon (if you follow WWE, you know who she is) who spent roughly $100 million spread over two separate attempts to win a seat in the Connecticut senate. She lost both times. So there are many other factors other than simply having enough money that can determine a winner and a loser.