Yes.

"Before Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad" would have been a good time.

Or before decades of gerrymandering, created a situations where moderates can't survive primaries against extremists and panderers.

Or maybe before Citizens United made it possible for corporations to threaten incumbents with supplying unlimited funding to an extremist opposition in their next primary bid or reelection.

Or maybe before a handful few chads changed the course of history for the worse for eight years.

Well, yeah. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was the Supreme Court decision that established corporate personhood, and made Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission possible.

That being said, I don't think corporate donors are especially concerned with traits of extremism, unless you count "extremely servile."

Corporations=People, but Unions=Thugs.

Citizens United will dump even more money into the election process, and anonymously, to boot.

But as I've said many times before -- it really should not matter.

Most of that money goes to 30-second TV commercials. An educated electorate should not be swayed by these commercials. Educated adults know their priorities -- their values -- and they've kept abreast of civic affairs, so they know how well their elected leaders represent those priorities and values, from city hall to the statehouse to Washington.

To the extent that 30-second TV commercials sway elections, it's because people let themselves be led like sheep.

Those millions of dollars matter -- the oligarchs control the process -- because too many voters are too stupid to inform themselves outside of the stream of crap the millions of dollars pay for.

We get the government we deserve.

Probably 90-95% of U.S. voters will not be swayed by commercials. So only that tiny majority of elections that are decided by less than 10% of the vote will matter.

That's really not fair. The fact of it is, if you repeat something often enough, many people will believe it. It has nothing to do with education, responsibility, or intelligence; it's how our brains are wired.

Hell, that belief in repetition is the basis of the entire advertising industry. You're a sharp guy, Lawson... but I'm sure that on a hot day, you've managed to reach for a beverage (like a soda or a beer) that acts as a diuretic, because an advertising campaign drilled into your head that it would be refreshing. And I'm sure it even felt pretty refreshing, even though it was actually dehydrating you.

I actually just drink cold water when I'm hot and thirsty for precisely the reason you mention.

In general, though, of course you're right, advertising works on everyone to some extent, and I'm sure that I'm not immune to its effects. But I hope that I would not base a decision as important as my vote on a TV commercial -- or two dozen repetitions of the same commercial. To my knowledge, I never have.

The commercials worry me because I get the impression that many voters rely on them almost exclusively for information. In a congressional election, for example, they may not be able to name their member of Congress, much less explain how their congressman or congresswoman has voted on key issues during the previous two years. They've not followed news of Congress. So they're ripe for the plucking when someone spends $10 million either to assure them that their member of Congress is a child-molesting scumbag or that he's the only thing standing between their family and godless communism.

Where did you get those figures?

I was under the impression there was no clear data on the subject. Even the mainstream media disagrees...

Why negative political ads work
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/02/opinion/lariscy-negative-ads/index.html

Do Negative Ads Make A Difference? Political Scientists Say Not So Much
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/...say-not-so-much