Whoever, he got it wrong in the politician's equation where money equals money and votes are the nearest thing to love. Money does buy votes, at least in the sense that it costs a lot of the stuff to convey your message to voters in precisely the terms you demand. The more you spend, the more likely the message will penetrate. If the message is right, it converts to votes. Love and votes don't equate in any cuddling sense but elections are the closest politicians get to their constituents.
Democracy is served by politicians being dependent on voters.
It leaves them more likely at least to try to give voters something approaching what they want. Everything in moderation, however. This explosion has a number of consequences. Independents and minor parties, for instance, are going to find it even more difficult to penetrate through the cacophony of election competition. Messages already are simplified and sanitised and homogenised to the point of shallowness.