I think their point is more generally against the "you can buy anything in politics with money" idea in this thread. They're saying there's evidence to the contrary in the big elections, and that the weak points in the political system are in specific places for specific reasons, and companies like Intuit are exploiting those places, not subverting the entire political system just because they have money. I'm not sure I 100% agree with the argument, but it's a decent case to be made.
(Unfortunately, mentioning Trump and the election quickly triggers people's defense mechanisms and attracts downvotes like here, even if the comment is using it as just supporting data in their argument.)
That's a good attempt to clarify the post, and it does make it easier to parse, or at least it would if I understood what a "weak point in the political system" means, but I don't know what that means.
(Unfortunately, mentioning Trump and the election quickly triggers people's defense mechanisms and attracts downvotes like here, even if the comment is using it as just supporting data in their argument.)