I think the majority like the idea but surprised there isn't a financial effort from the prison and associated industries to fight the idea. If it works though, it's a huge win for getting minor offenders out of concrete cages.
Goverment officials can just ignore financial efforts of private companies, when their reelection campaign is not dependent on that money. If by fighting a private company, you make voters happy then those votes directly gotten can be worth more than any votes that added campaign funds would possibly give.
So even you concede that it's not totally dependent. Boiling elections down to one problem is a gross oversimplification. Yeah you need money, but you also need a platform people want to vote for. You need good faith with your electorate.
What good is cash if you've alienated your base? What good is cash if you've already got 32x more than your opponent (Cuomo's $16MM to Nixon's $500k)[0]?
Right now, Cuomo's at a greater risk losing progressive votes than running out of money. The memories of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez v Joe Crowley are still fresh in everyone's mind. Money didn't help Crowley there...
Agreed about one party election districts (statewide or otherwise), but winning the primary still depends on money. It's an interesting question about whether it depends on money more or less than in districts decided by the general election.
Many fewer people vote in the primary, but perhaps those people are harder to reach, or perhaps who shows up depends heavily on money (or perhaps something else).
Also, I observe that politicians want money for more than their elections. They provide funds from their treasure chest to other politicians and groups. I wonder how much that use of money affects their fundraising and money's influence on them. (I think it seems like a source of corruption, and that money donated for the election should be spent on it or returned.)
