Psst.. it mentions that in the article you are commenting on...

Sotto voce: I'm being sarcastically rhetorical. ;-)

It has more chance to succeed in U.S. because they can buy political power directly and more easily.

Only engineers think this. It's really not that easy to buy power directly, because most senators/congressman/etc are already wealthy.

What? Fundraising is buying power directly.

FB: I give you money for fundraising, you approve bills that are good for me.

Congressman: OK.

This is quite literally indirect. Because they are not giving money to the candidate themselves , they are giving money to a campaign, and the candidate can't touch it.

Isn't like one of the biggest job satisfaction complaints Senators and Congresspeople have the amount of time they have to spend every week fundraising?

Yes. But fundraising is indirect, not direct :)

Buying you directly would be "paying you for your time" or "paying you to pass a bill"

Buying you indirectly would be "paying your company for someone's time, they assign you" or "paying your campaign to curry favor with you".

In the first case, you get the money/benefit. In the second case, someone else gets the money/benefit.

More importantly, in the first case, you are doing a thing with a goal of a direct effect. I pay you, you write bill. In the second case, you are doing thing with a goal of an indirect effect. I donate to your campaign, i hope this makes you write bill i like.

You don't get to use your campaign money to buy a house or pay for your kid's education. In fact, depending, you may have to give it back :)

In any case, I don't see how you can call that "directly buying power". You are doing a thing, you are hoping it has some indirect effect.