There has always been a problem here where the candidate with the most money can afford the most airtime (advertising). The candidate most in the public arena becomes more familiar to the voters and hence may get more votes (theoretically). That is why there is a big push for REAL campaign funding reform (limiting the amount of money a candidate can receive from a single interest group or individual).
http://www.publicampaign.org/
http://www.nytimes.com/library/politics/fundraisingindex.html


>>This is an interesting article:
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/16/AR2007041601705.html
>>
>>If money could buy the presidency, then Ross Perot would have won.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
>
>That was ong time ago ... I remember this guy running for president :)
>But Ross Perrot ot Bloomberg spending their own money trying to
>get ellected with idea of doing some noble work for society/country
>does not bother me much. And it is not so common or sucesfull anyways.
>
>What I see as the problem more then rich individuals is;
>that well organised interest (capital) groups/corporations are actually alowed this way to shape (or bent) countries futures invariably trying to fit their business agenda in it. It is happening globally and modern society
>(democracies) has not yet found real nswer to this threat.
>
>So Again one of my naive questions :)
>If someone gives you 100mb$ today;
>how you can possibly be impartial tmrw when phone ring?