Look at how many well-funded candidates still lose elections because voters just do not like them or their message. Money can buy ads, but it cannot force people to vote a certain way, so I think the idea that campaign cash automatically corrupts the whole thing is a bit overblown.

The practical consequence is that if cash alone decided races, the biggest spender would basically always win, which doesn't match how campaigns actually play out. The other side hasn't really given me much to answer, so I'll just say money matters but voters still get the final say.

Fair enough, money can help someone get their message out there, I get that. But I still feel like voters make the final call, so cash alone doesn't automatically corrupt an election. The other side hasn't really given me a strong point to push back on, honestly.