This is no great secret, and has been done for decades.
Originally it was half legitimate, that the party leadership decided to only give support to candidates that they felt were competitive, often who had already secured the backing of the big name donors to the party.
This came to a head even before the primary season had begun with W. Bush before his first term, who had so monopolized the big contributors that all challengers, especially John McCain, were locked out of the process. For his part, McCain was livid about it.
However the Tea Party has clarified a new angle to this, by pointing out that the leadership are all “big tent” Republicans, who were automatically cutting out conservative candidates on the assumption that they could not win, so should not be given a chance to try, as it would just waste party resources.
And while to conservatives, the leaderships’ disastrous choices of Dole, McCain and Romney showed that liberal Republicans couldn’t win; it just reinforced the leaderships’ belief that it proved “since liberals (moderates) can’t win then conservatives have no chance.”
That is their assumption that even their liberal choices weren’t “big tent” liberal enough. In all fairness, the leadership did not reach this conclusion on their own, it is a major belief of the Republican beltway bandits, like Karl Rove, who increasingly reject conservatism and are rejected by conservatives.
You have no list to show. You have a conspiracy theory instead.
All you are pointing to are big contributors, and then the power that comes from winning a campaign.
Yes, you need money to run. If you can’t get big ones, you need a lot of small ones.
If you can’t organize and inspire and raise money and attract talent and build a winning campaign, you lose. No, it’s not easy, particularly if you don’t already have a base - you have to build it. It takes what it takes.
That’s no conspiracy: it’s politics and reality.
The rest, IMHO, is making excuses for not succeeding for one real reason or another.
I should also point out that the most money doesn’t always win. In the end what counts is votes.
The freshman house under Gingrich was outspent three-to-one. John Conally is famous for having spent a million dollars (back when that was a lot of money) on one delegate, and the list goes on.
You tried.
Thanks.