I quite doubt the effectiveness of the -100 penalty to spammers (per post) because I've never seen spammers with 6+ reputation, not even 100. So -100 makes hardly any difference from -10, -1k or -1M. I think there's nothing to stop them except by preventing them to spam more.
Is the -100 just a "warning sign" to put rookie spammers in fear?
I hope someone can help me write a query in SEDE to illustrate my guess. What is the highest reputation ever recorded of a user when one of his posts was deleted for spam?
What I've seen so far:
Deliberate spams are always straightforward and obvious. When one sees a blatantly off-topic post talking about the advantages of a unrelated product, he will immediately give a spam flag.
Unaware spams are usually not so obvious, and can often show the author's intention to provide a reasonable answer. I have once seen a moderately good answer with a bottom line navigating readers to an advertising page, with a comment below
Remove that link or get a downvote and a flag
You see, the community can well identify intentional spam and careless spam, so it's very rare that a careless user receives the penalty. I deduce that 99% of the times such penalty is applied to hit-and-run spammers, resuling in no effect. That's why I think its greatest value is to frighten rookie or hesitating spammers.