I'll swing wildly in the other direction with campaign financing and point out Bloomberg's run for president. He outspent everybody and won American Samoa. He wasn't unqualified, either. He was mayor of NYC.

Money matters on an s curve. The bigger the election the more you tend to spend, but it reaches a saturation point. This said in the average election this saturation point is a lot of money.

Are you saying that one billionaire's loss in the primaries indicates money is not a problem in U.S. politics?

I was thinking of things like the 2015 study referenced in this article [0] that looked at 1,800 policy change polls over three decades indicating that elites got their way twice as often as the majority, and the majority never - not a single time - got something the elites didn't support.

In the other direction, the article gave examples of things the elites wanted that were passed into law, even thought he majority opposed. Like NAFTA, the Bush tax cuts, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall banking laws.

It appears that politicians pay more attention to voters with money.

btw, I agree with you that ideally voters are rational and informed. I guess that's a separate question than the influence of money.

[0] https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2015/05/disturbing-d...