Will Harris (or any other candidate for that matter) getting so much money/donations raise the issue of "quid pro quo"?
How is the allegations/perception of the 'best candidate money can buy' be handled?
I wonder about that because in Australia, unless they are an independent, we donate to a party rather than a person.
Yeah, the seppos do it differently. They see being
bribed supported financially by donors as the only (and therefore the usual) way to do business, and so the thinking is never "If this candidate is getting so much money, to whom will that make them beholden?", but rather "If this candidate is getting so much money, that must mean they are a fundamentally better person than the other candidate(s)".
You might note in this thread, this forum, and in US media generally, a tacit acceptance that "being a good fundraiser" is a positive trait in a candidate.
Having wealthy donors implies that smart people* think that a candidate should win. Who are you to suggest that such smart people might be wrong? If you're smarter than Paris Hilton, why ain't you richer than her?
* because any wealthy person must, unquestionably, be more intelligent than anyone else, obviously.