That voters are not simply dupes of contributors is clear from the fact that, in the 2016 Republican primary, when Jeb Bush was a powerhouse fund-raiser and Donald Trump relied on the cost-free device of Twitter, there was little evident correlation between money spent and votes received. American voters often blame money in politics for political outcomes they dislike. In fact, the constitutional system is designed to require majorities to persist in supporting something concrete before they prevail. It is difficult to identify instances in American history of an electoral majority wanting something specific that it has not eventually gotten.

Clearly, members of Congress are far wealthier on average than their constituents. This may affect their thinking, but not nearly as much as the fact that each of them holds his or her office by the permission of voters. It is also difficult to deny that contributions correlate with policy outcomes on some issues — although causation is difficult to establish because most major policies trigger spending on both sides — or that large contributors enjoy enhanced access to politicians, who are susceptible to lobbying.

The question is which issues these contributors are able to influence. The answer is those to which voters do not pay attention. This tends to happen in a system that attempts — as in Mr. Trump’s industrial policy or Mr. Sanders’ democratic socialism — to dictate precise economic distributions and consequently involves itself in far more than voters can monitor. Rent-seeking — the attempt to use government power to tilt the market in one’s favor — is certainly a problem. But it arises not simply from the fact that economic favors are sought but also from the fact that they are provided.

Anthropomorphizing economic “systems” that are actually the products of trillions of individual choices further confuses the issue. Ms. Warren may wish to describe the results of those choices as kicking “dirt” on workers, but there is no single identifiable system doing the kicking.

All the claims of rigged systems that now saturate American politics make reasoned conversation more difficult. Whether one supports or opposes it, for example, abolishing the private insurance that hundreds of millions of Americans hold is certainly a radical proposition. Is it really impossible for anyone other than the venal or the duped to oppose the idea?

In reality, the activities swept into the label of corruption — campaign finance and quid-pro-quo negotiation — are important means of building coalitions. Whatever their merit, Ms. Warren’s ambitious plans to remake the economy are doomed unless she is elected along with a Democratic Senate, which will only happen if money is spent to persuade voters to dislodge entrenched Republican incumbents. Given the advantages of incumbency — incumbents, for example, do not have to spend money to garner name recognition — they almost certainly will have to be outspent.

Similarly, earmarked, pork-barrel spending — which the Republican House of Representatives prohibited in 2011 as part of the Tea Party wave — is an invaluable tool for assembling bipartisan majorities for legislation because it helps members of Congress see the good a bill does for their constituents.