So opposition spending $250M to win an election and then given control over government spending by that same president, while owning companies that have billions in government contracts, is Marxism? In most non-Marxist democratic countries, the above would be considered corruption.
It's Marxism to assume that it's at all rational to limit the amount of wealth someone can accumulate. What is the alternative to unlimited accumulation of wealth?
The point is that the person who gave the most -- by far -- is now in a position to unilaterally make major decisions affecting all Americans, and other countries too (USAID).
