In the U.S., elections at higher levels have long been mainly won by whichever side spends more money. This is another way of saying that the elections there are pretty much bought. The data on this is compelling — political scientist Thomas Ferguson has done extensive work (shown in his book Golden Rule) revealing that going back decades, the campaign that spent more money usually won the election.
So when a victory such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (who didn’t have a SuperPAC) defeating the corporate-indentured incumbent Joseph Crowley happens, it’s significant. The progressive Ocasio-Cortez campaign was outspent by an estimated 16 to 1, yet it still managed to achieve a fairly strong victory.
About 75 percent of Americans want some form of campaign finance reform because of how obvious it is that political elections have been corrupted by too much money in politics. So while it’s very good that a candidate such as Ocasio-Cortez has shown the ability to win, if America had a fairer campaign finance system, it would be easier for a candidate such as her to do so. That’s something important to know for the future, so that more good candidates can be elected to positively reform America.