this is the digital age, facebook and twitter are more important than cnn and fox news. money helps, yes, but it only gets you so far. youre also evading my point. politicians would much rather sell out to special interests, but point in fact the PEOPLE PUT THE POLITICIAN IN OFFICE, which once again brings me back to my point: if you are the 99%, and you are as united as you say, capable of organizing nonviolent protests across the country without financial backing, capable of making sure everyone knows what is going there via youtube, facebook, and twitter in spite of zero media coverage, then it shouldnt matter how much money politicians raise, unless of course 1) the 99% is not very united, or 2) the 99% is uninformed.
To suggest it is as simple as raising more money than the other guy in an age where information is so available its impossible to process it all is insulting to the average voter, unless you assume the average voter is an idiot.
Point in fact, ron paul, whose campaign depends almost entirely on private donations from inidiviiduals and gets nearly no media time is leading the gop in iowa right now.
and to austerus, if that grannie who got her home foreclosed is in a society and district that cares about her, people will do something (even though a foreclosed home is totally irrelevant to the conversation), if her district and neighborhood do nothing, then the average voter is interested in the status quo, which makes campaign money irrelevant