There is an opinion that candidates who are not rich can be controlled by their sponsors. But can't they just accept the campaign donation and not help their donor after the election? How can sponsors possibly control them after elections ?
- Many sponsors don't sponsor politicians to influence their agenda but rather sponsor politicians who already have a favorable agenda to begin with. (when this is true, then the argument "X is poor so X will be influenced by their sponsors" is of course rebutted. When X already has a questionable agenda, it should be possible to argue against that agenda specifically without falling to the fallacy of guilt by association)
- In many cases, candidates will not just want to be elected once, but also want to be elected again. That means they will be in need of further sponsorship in the future. Disappointing their sponsors could lead them to support opposing candidates in the next election.
- Often, campaign sponsors do not just support the candidate(s) but the political party as a whole. Even when the candidate(s) run for a position which doesn't allow re-election, the party as a whole will want to elect one of their own for the next election when they will again be in need of sponsors.
Most sponsors also fund or drum up support for candidates for a gain after the candidate wins, these includes:
to be appointed to positions, or to influence who to be appoited
to be awarded tenders or to influence whom to be awarded tenders
For business and property protection motives
this is common in the African politics but I still believe even outside Africa it is common.