>Yes, money from a primary can be used in the general. But in this case, it wasn't. The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them.

Money doesn't work that way. Money is fungible. There is nothing about contribution x that distinguishes it from contribution y once both are received, or prevents x from being used for the same purpose as y.

Further,

>In contrast, almost all of the FTX-related donations to the GOP were given during the general cycle meaning that they were specifically given to help elect candidates. This means the GOP actually benefited more from FTX money than the Dems

The other way around. Money given later in an election cycle means there is less time to use it.

No, campaign money is not fungible. There are rules about how and when it can be spent.

So I'm going to leave this conversation, since it's clear that you're coming from a position of ignorance and there's no point in continuing this conversation until you spend time reading a primer on campaign finance laws.

>No, campaign money is not fungible. There are rules about how and when it can be spent.

Yes, in terms of individual contribution limits, and various other rules. However, not in the context that we have been discussing, which is using primary contributions in the general election. As the FEC explains <https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate...>:

>As previously noted, should the candidate lose the primary election, contributions accepted for the general election must be refunded, redesignated or reattributed within 60 days and may not be used to repay primary election debt. Therefore, candidate committees should ensure they have enough cash on hand to make those refunds if needed.

>Candidates running in the general election, however, may spend unused primary contributions for general election expenses. The contributions would continue to apply toward the contributors’ limits for the primary. [My emphasis] In addition, the campaign of a candidate running in the general election may use general election contributions for primary election debts; the contributions would still count against the contributor’s general election limits.

As I said, this is why donating earlier is better than donating later, and why your claim that "The FTX money was used to select candidates but not to elect them" is meaningless.

Of course you won't pay attention to the above, since you've already pontificated that

>So I'm going to leave this conversation, since it's clear that you're coming from a position of ignorance and there's no point in continuing this conversation until you spend time reading a primer on campaign finance laws.

Sheesh.