The Democratic Party has a monopoly on a product known as the “primary season” that is very much in demand. Like any good monopolist, it is milking its captive audience (Democrats) for all they’re worth. None of this is particularly shocking—just imagine yourself as a tech columnist and think of the party as a platform—but the end result produces a series of debates built around two complementary factors: What works for television, and what works for the party organization.

CBS News concluded tonight’s debate by literally lying to the audience about there being more debate to be had after its final commercial break, but every advertisement for Viking Cruises or Ring home self-surveillance cameras you sat through waiting to learn the debate had, in fact, ended should leave you wondering why the party allows these debates to be a for-profit telecast to begin with, instead of just letting a nonprofit news organization stage them and allowing any third party to broadcast them at no charge. (The networks would air these things without exclusivity, I promise you, against just about anything but an NFL playoff game.)

It seems mainly like a gentleman’s agreement that everyone ought to get a little green from the arrangement. Tonight’s debate was not simply a public service, allowing South Carolina’s voters to hear closing arguments in advance of this weekend’s primary: It was also a fundraising opportunity.

As others have noted, tonight’s audience was weird. Which is to say, it was wealthy: “The only guaranteed way to get a ticket is to become a sponsor of the debate,” WCSC reported before the debate. “Sponsorship ranges from $1,750 to $3,200 each for attendance to multiple ‘First in the South’ events.”

That is not quite a complete explanation for how and why the crowd seemed oddly sympathetic to billionaire Michael Bloomberg after its hostility in Nevada—even Bloomberg seemed slightly surprised by how lustily the audience booed Elizabeth Warren’s invocation of the entirely credible claim (also challenged by the moderators) that he insisted a pregnant employee terminate her pregnancy—but it helps to explain the tenor of the evening. Having erected a paywall, the Democrats most comfortable with plutocracy were free to negotiate how they’d operate within it.