[orangecat]

Sanders outspent Clinton but Clinton (like Trump) was a well known and established public figure reaping in huge benefits from free media coverage.

Yes, that's part of my point. Suppose you overcome the many Constitutional and logistical problems and pass campaign finance laws that limit candidates to spending a fixed amount of money and prohibit third party spending. This would give an even bigger advantage to candidates who are already well known, political insiders, and those the media chooses to give attention to.

People say Sanders got crushed by Clinton, ignoring the media blackout on his campaign for the first half of the primary and the fact that he started in the low single digits for name ID and ended with 45% of the votes.

And the DNC blatantly putting their thumb on the scale. Sanders did as well as he did largely because ordinary people were able to contribute to his campaign and help get his message out.

[chillwaves]

This does not support the argument that money does not matter in politics. It clearly does. It is not everything, but it is something and something huge.

Money is a proxy to power. Power can be expressed in different ways, such as influence as seen by both Clinton and Trump.

How does this refute that money from any source can influence elections? We need campaign finance reform now.

[djrogers]

GP does not appear to be disputing the claim that money matters in politics, (s)he appears to be disputing the insistence that this is a bad thing which must be removed.

Currently the only leverage that someone from outside the government class has is money, and reform that takes all of that power from the citizenry and puts it in the hands of the government is downright scary.