[ConservativeDude]

They could. And Trump could.

But Trump doesn’t need to....

[discostu]

They could buy endorsements, but there’s no proof that’ll get them votes.

[elhombrelibre]

Trump has and is. He’s buying his way into a hostile takeover. But no one has the balls to call this mobbed-up, immoral, crank on it. He’s as dirty as he is ignorant.

[Sybeck1]

That’s what RedState said about Phyllis Schlafly. Despicable

[The Iceman Cometh]

The opposite question would be:

Does a candidate who received money from a donor feel obligated to act in the donor's best interest?

[FrankR]

A cheap insinuation...sign of desperate people.

[mrsmith]

Typically the Dems always benefit from “interest groups” who they’ve paid off with government funding.
The groups work for them in the elections in exchange.

[jjotto]

What’s the difference whether it’s a “wealthy candidate” or a political organization using money to buy endorsements/votes?

[JimRed]

If he needed to do so, sure. But Trump does not appear to have that need.

[ThomasThomas]

Kinda like government unions buying air time for their candidates?

[Da Coyote]

Is the Pope Catholic?

No, wait....

[ozzymandus]

They do it every election. This is news?

[jwalsh07]

Sure but what’s the alternative? More government? No thanks. Americans get the leaders they vote for. A hard truth.

[Smokin' Joe]

Ya think!??

It isn't just a question of what the candidate could buy, but a question of what endorsements might mean for future deals, whether or not the candidate is wealthy. The latter has always been in play with the unscrupulous.