This year many high profile campaigns that spent the most money also lost, and the ones that won by spending the most were not "corporate" but were Bernie aligned.
Sanders, despite some reformist tendencies, is a also corporate-aligned. He is a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party and of its pro-corporate leadership; supports the military-industrial complex and most (not all) of its foreign interventions; and recently voted for the CARES act, which transferred huge amounts of wealth to large corporations.
Those "Bernie-aligned" elected members of the house have just recently chosen to support Hundred-Millionaire house member Nanci Pelosi for speaker of the house. They did not even do this in exchange for anything. Other Bernie-aligned representatives, already in office before this year, have also neglected to act against their pro-corporate party line.
So, the moneyed elites can indirectly win even if they ostensibly lose.
> and recently voted for the CARES act, which transferred huge amounts of wealth to large corporations.
That was a payroll support program like every other country did, plus airline bailouts which were good because they have giant union contracts.
CARES is the greatest anti-poverty measure the US has done in a hundred years and probably the largest downward transfer of wealth in the world. You didn't notice because all left-wing commentators decided to lie about it ("we only got $1200 checks") instead of reading about how the unemployment benefit worked.
While you may be able to point to one or two anomalies, we need more than that. If the MPA has the ear of 70% of congress, that's still enough to have their way on legislation, regardless of a few fringe elements.
is not necessarily incorrect. But it is also possible that it is the other way around:
being popular => receiving funding => winning
I.e. candidates which are more popular tend to have an easier time receiving funding. Or, it could be some combination. This would also explain the outcomes you point to.
