The purpose of parties irrelevant. We’re concerned with whether having the wealthy in various parties shows that the nonwealthy don’t need to change their views to get a wealthy person’s support. Why parties exist doesn’t affect whether a candidate might have to change her views.

This possibility shows why a nonwealthy person might need to change their views to win a wealthy person’s support. Even if a wealthy person is part of the candidate’s party, that doesn’t mean the views of the party or the wealthy person in the party are shared by the candidate.

The argument concerns democratic elections that are NOT fully subsidized by the government. Even if countries with subsidized elections ensure against being “overly influenced” by the wealthiest, that doesn’t suggest anything about countries without subsidized elections.

The argument concerns whether a nonwealthy candidate needs to change her views to win support of a wealthy person. Whether an election is easier to win for a wealthy person than for a nonwealthy person has no impact on whether a nonwealthy person needs to change her views.

The argument concerns whether a nonwealthy candidate needs to change her views to win support of a wealthy person. Whether there are other flaws in a democracy has no bearing on whether a nonwealthy candidate must change her views.