It is not less dangerous because you include Marxist delusions like "capital" in your description, as if "capital" is an autonomous entity with a will and interests of its own. In fact, it takes money to run a campaign, and that money comes from a large variety of interests and sources, all of which are competing and not by any means unitary, anf among which include very not "capital"-like things such as workers unions, individual donations, groups set up by citizens, etc.

You don't get a pass because you think your election denialism sounds sophisticated and progressive by inserting Marxist terms into the picture.

- Michael Bloomberg - Hillary Clinton (both in the 2008 primary and 2016 general) - Alex Vindman ...

a simple Google search reveals that while there is some threshold amount of dosh necessary to get noticed, _more money != more votes_. To believe otherwise is is willful ignorance. Sometimes your favorite candidate loses because the median actual voter (you know, the guy who actual fills out the form) prefers the status quo for their own reasons and not because they're brainwashed or whatever it is that "capital interests" do to them.