Maybe these are obvious considerations, but seeing those reddit comments makes me wonder:
At what point does further ad spending become actively counterproductive by provoking people into voting for the competition, or into persuading others to?
Is it worth it for someone like Flynn or Bankman-Fried to communicate directly to the voting public explicitly acknowledging how many ads there are from outside funders, and explaining why that seemed like a legitimate thing to do given what these outside funders felt to be the stakes? (At least I don't think I've seen such communication so far.) That might give people an alternative to the adversarial frame that they might otherwise default to.
Maybe these are obvious considerations, but seeing those reddit comments makes me wonder: