Has anyone actually ”bought an election”, or is that a popular myth?

Back in Oct last year when the campaign circus was getting started the New York Times (so you know the info has to be fairly creditable) said that half of all the campaign seed money came from just 150+ wealthy families from areas like LA, San Fran, Palm Beach, the Hamptons, and the River Oaks Country Club, etc. Most of this money went heavily towards the party of Twiddle Dumb (the Republican), and some trickling to the party of Twiddle Dee (the Democrats). With so much going to Twiddle Dumb one would think it was senior white people with ”old money”, but half were self-made millionaires and billionaires who took risks and leveraged their capital to larger and larger gains, they come from Russia, India, Pakistan, Asia, etc. They (according to the Times) favored the party of Twiddle Dumb more because they felt over regulation stifles smaller companies and business to achieving the success they have (seems noble enough), plus they want to see a relaxing of capital gains, inheritance tax, and shrinking of entitlements. If they and the companies they own and business they control pumped tens of hundreds of million dollars into a campaign or behind a candidate and he/she won, would that constitute they ”bought” that election? What if they pumped all that money in and the candidate lost (as has happened many times in the past), could it be said they lost that election? History has never shown, at least where I can see it, that the most money always guaranteed a victory for the candidate with the most backing, either their own money or that of others. So, doesn’t that make ”buying and election” more myth than true?