Am sure a lot of people may have come to the conclusion that the influence of finance on an electorial campaign may be dwindling, especially after the Trump presidential victory which saw the Clinton campaign spend significantly more during the election. Such deductions from a single event isn't just an exagerration, it is one that could prove potentially costly. Make no mistake about this - The Trump victory was an exception, not the rule.
Elections are generally won and lost by the amount of financial muscle at ones disposal. Not only elections, virtually all major revolutions or movements require financial backing to ascend. Without powerful supporters acting as lobbyists in the media and political space, a lot of social changes would've been dead on arrival.
I have already discussed about how the amount of money at ones disposal can equate to influence on the political scene. Additionally, simply getting the basics of any message out can have major financial implications. So you can sit there with the best of intentions and a powerful message to the World, but nobody can care about what they don't hear, and for that you need either some big mainstream players paying attention or major funds to get the message out on your own.
Being underfinanced in an election means we're at the mercy of the mainstream perhaps slipping up or giving the opposition some unintended publicity. Spending during a campaign is usually the lifeblood of it for all the right and wrong reasons. Money digs up dirt, secrets and other slanderous tools politicians have at their disposal to make their opponents look bad. Money buys credibility, like I mentioned in the first part of this piece.
We're losing the war on truth because we've been bringing pillows to a baseball play. The alternative media needs some serious backing, else they'll buy up our people and our kids with their propaganda.