Sen. Bernie Sanders is furious at the sight of the richest Americans spending billions of dollars on this year's elections, a development he believes is turning American democracy into a sham. "We are talking about a rapid movement in this country toward a political system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests will determine who gets elected or who does not get elected," he says.

Actually, we are talking about a system in which a handful of very wealthy people and special interests do not determine who gets elected. Sanders may think billionaires are buying elections. But any people who have that purpose are finding that elections are not for sale at any price.

Ask Jeb Bush, who entered the campaign with a solid record as former governor of Florida, a lot of support among establishment Republicans and one of the most famous family names in American political history. Thanks to his deep-pocket donors, he also had more money than Midas.

Jeb and the super PAC supporting him spent some $150 million, far surpassing any of his GOP rivals. But he quit the race last month after finishing way back in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.

Dr. Ben Carson also discovered that money can buy a lifetime supply of zilch. The $51 million he spent in Iowa and New Hampshire worked out to a staggering $2,154 for every vote he got. Sen. Ted Cruz spent just $472 per vote. Donald Trump spent $87 (and just $12 million in all).

Former governor Rick Perry and Gov. Scott Walker, who had plenty of money for the race, washed out long before the voting started.

Trump has proven so adept at commanding voter interest and media coverage that campaign ads are almost beside the point. He's not the only candidate proving that the right message is worth a lot more than a big war chest.

There is also a guy named Sanders, who has mounted a challenge to Hillary Clinton despite a mismatch of resources — drawing big enthusiastic crowds and winning nine states so far. He's in second place, not due not to inadequate funds — he spent $6.1 million in the Super Tuesday states, compared to Clinton's $7.8 million — but to his inability to appeal to African-Americans and other Democratic constituencies.

All this should give pause to those who accuse the Supreme Court and the politicians of turning democracy into a garish auction where the highest bidders typically get their way. Campaign cash is one means for politicians and their supporters to put their case out in front of the public. But Sanders and Trump have demonstrated that it's not the only way. And several other candidates have shown there is no substitute for a compelling message.

In the old days, the super-rich were said to flaunt their wealth by lighting cigars with $20 bills. These days, they may do it by lavishing millions on politics, a gesture that appears to be even more wasteful. At least the old-timers got a good smoke.

REPRINTED FROM THE JACKSONVILLE DAILY NEWS