Fair enough, but the below sources are extremely boring and sometimes quite technical.
I would also point out that incumbents clearly do support some campaign finance reform because they occasionally pass laws to limit and control spending.
This Canadian study argues that spending limits help incumbents more, or don’t help challengers as much as one might expect:
This US study reaches the same conclusion:
https://www.princeton.edu/~ameirowi/published/valence_jop_final.pdf
As does this one:
http://www.pitt.edu/~cwb7/assets/papers/JOP%2011%20article.pdf
I admit to skimming the last one more than the others because this is a boring topic to me lol.
I have extremely little faith in electoral politics, although I’d like a Bernie presidency if only to prove anti-voting critiques right again (on the heels of Obama’s failure) and move more people toward movements for direct action–but with that said, I can’t see how a political system that has always existed for the ruling class could possibly undergo significant, positive changes only with campaign finance reform. Historically, mass mobilization in the streets has always been the catalyst behind major changes, and when policies start to back slide again, it’s usually due to either a repressive authoritarian regime that actively crushes opposition movements, or to the absence of an effective mass social movement altogether.
