For business people looking for bang for the buck, political contributions represent a sure-fire return on investment. Relatively small amounts invested in the U.S. political process often result in policy changes of enormous consequence to individual companies or entire industries. This may not be bribery in criminal law terms, but it is something awfully close. And even the bribery label does not fully capture the systemic and pervasive corrupting influence of money on the political process. Individual examples highlight how crude the quid pro quo may be, but they don't illustrate the broader and profound degradation of the democratic process.
Money first affects who chooses to run for office.
At the federal level, running a credible race for the House of Representatives requires at least a half million dollars, and in most cases closer to one million dollars. This de facto requirement tends to filter out those who don't have rich friends or a willingness to consort with, buddy up to and support positions favored by the wealthy. At the same time, it tends to attract to the race those who themselves can invest huge sums in electoral politics, since federal campaign finance limits do not apply to personal spending. Although there is nothing inevitable about it, money then affects the nature of the campaign. And money does affect outcomes.