In tribal societies chiefs and other "big men" would hold feasts, give gifts and destroy material possessions. The more lavish the expense, the richer and more powerful the chief was implied to be and the stronger his claim to power. It strikes me that political campaigns, especially in a democracy, are not so different. What is the point of fundraising? One would think that in an age when ideas can be easily disseminated at low cost and assuming the ideal of a citizen making his political choice based on an affinity with a candidate's policy, no such efforts would need to be undertaken. Citizens would know where the candidates stand, decide if they agree and vote accordingly. But clearly that is not what happens.
Sure, most of the money is spent on advertising. But it's not like any substantive policy positions are thus articulated. The money simply winds up in the pockets of campaign managers, media companies and not put to any productive use. A good amount of political coverage concerns the amounts of money raised by the candidates. As if this amount by itself should give a candidate distinction and provide legitimacy for his claim to power. Is this not similar to the competition between tribal chiefs?