Yes, Rand influenced more people laterally than the number that wholly accepts objectivism. I would attribute the influence to the fact that libertarian Adam Smith economics are as correct today as they were in the time of Adam Smith, and she reiterated them, selling more books than Adam Smith.
The statement that a kind man and a selfish man are ethically equal is not an ethical theory. Or, if it is, sort of like the statement that the earth is flat is an astronomical theory, it is still laughable. Why? Because it leaves me with no explanation why the kind man's reward, wholy non-palpable, is equivalent to the selfish man's reward, wholly objectively manifestable to all.
You compare a kind man to a selfish man. Where as I compare two wholly greedy selfish men. Which of the two is truly "kind," is dependent upon outside factors not brought into this discussion thus far. The only difference we have presented is that the one gives away his extras to others, while the other keeps his extras for him self.
Changing the parameters of the discussion after the fact, so as to justify an insult of me, does not prove your point. But if it makes you feel good, go right ahead doing so. Especially if that be the ethics you speak of.