This is misleading (it is approximately correct if you look only at candidate committee spending, but it excludes outside spending—where the advantage went the other way, and the outside spending in 2024 exceeded campaign committee spending.)
Even if the figure itself weren't misleading, basing the argument around it is. The problematic dynamic isn't that the most money makes for a guaranteed win - rather it's that whomever does manage to win will be inclined to work for their major sponsors, especially if they will be up for reelection.
