CMV: A passionate majority is, on average, far better at influencing what politicians do than the donations of the wealthy

I'm just a guy with very little knowledge of politics, but this doesn't seem obvious to everyone.<br><br>&#x200B;<br><br>The current sentiment seems to be that the wealthy and large corporations have far more influence than regular people. I can't prove that the wealthy and large corporations don't have more influence, but I believe they don't. I believe an engaged and passionate majority can influence politicians to be more "popular" in the end.<br><br>&#x200B;<br><br>Why would politicians even need to be re-elected if the wealthy and corporations funded them entirely? The wealthy and corporations don't decide who gets electeed. Politicians need donors, but they *are required to be popular.*<br><br>&#x200B;<br><br>I don't believe Trump would have anything close to the following he has today if the American people actually hated him. I believe the group that makes it seem like everyone hates him is just passionate about it, but they aren't the majority.<br><br>&#x200B;<br><br>This is just one really obvious example. I'm sure there are plenty of situations where this wasn't the case, but I would guess that the passionate majority has more influence on the average politician.