As to why it matters: while I wholly agree that smaller, individual donors are very much preferable to larger, corporate ones, the system is inherently inefficient. Because people from across the country donate to candidates who are not in their districts, it tends to favour a handful of high-profile candidates over the remainder. Thus, AOC ended up raising $2m to win a race that she quite literally would have won without spending a dime...her district is one of the safest in the country, and her opponent raised about $4000 (not a typo).
Now, the money her campaign (and others) spend certainly have knock-on benefits for other candidates, for issue advocacy, etc. But that's the one area where the GOP and their well-heeled backers have generally done better, simply because they have recognized that, from a legislative standpoint, it's far more important to flood the zone, funding every damned candidate to maximize the number of seats you can win, rather than focusing on throwing money at your personal favourites, many of whom are in races that are utterly noncompetitive.
Now, the money her campaign (and others) spend certainly have knock-on benefits for other candidates, for issue advocacy, etc. But that's the one area where the GOP and their well-heeled backers have generally done better, simply because they have recognized that, from a legislative standpoint, it's far more important to flood the zone, funding every damned candidate to maximize the number of seats you can win, rather than focusing on throwing money at your personal favourites, many of whom are in races that are utterly noncompetitive.
