I don't think I'd want to tie my "here's proof of the corrupting influence of money in politics" thesis to Bloomberg's presidential run, because (1a) a vanity presidential campaign is probably one of the *least* effective ways a billionaire can spend money to influence politics…
…and (1b) Bloomberg in particular has a lot of factors working against him (too moderate, too old, D voters don't want him, getting in too late, won't be in debates, little support among black voters) that make his campaign unlikely to be a runaway success, to put it mildly.
While we don't know exactly how this is going to turn out, outcomes such as "spent $350m on ads, and got 6 delegates in Connecticut and 1 in the Virgin Islands" are in the thick range of the probability distribution for Bloomberg.
