If that were true, then we would still be climbing out of the caves and learning to make fire. Humans innovate, adapt, and overcome, machines do not.
Ask yourself this: What was the quality of life for black people in the US right after they were emancipated?
Often worse than when they were slaves. Yet that does not make slavery just, nor its abolition unjust.
For all his wealth, an Egyptian Pharaoh could not buy a television set or a cell phone. Yet such modern luxuries are ubiquitous among "rich" and "poor" alike in the developed world. Where did they get it from? Who had to lose so that they could benefit?
Wealth is not a zero-sum game.
There are basically two kinds of poor people, permanent and temporary. The permanent poor are the kind you describe, who are unable or unwilling to create enough value to justify a wage. The temporary poor, on the other hand, are those who are able and willing to do so, but for whatever reason are momentarily lacking for economic means. Paying anyone more than the value they create has a cost, which must be paid by everyone else. The people hardest hit by the imposition of this cost are the temporary poor, because they are least able to afford it. And so what happens is that people who would otherwise spend only a small part of their lives poor end up spending most if not all of their lives poor. The end result is that there are no temporary poor, only permanent poor, and their number increases until the whole system can no longer be sustained.
Engineers are not fungible.
Before there were effective bunker busters and drones that kill dozens at a time, there was carpet bombing that killed thousands at a time. Those inclined to do violence for whatever reason will find a way to do so. The engineer who designs a better weapon is making it possible for fewer people to die in the process.
Did the engineer who invented the weapon cause harm, or did the person using it?
Having said that, in case it seems like I'm not making a point, you can control how you vote and how you spend your time. Vote in the manner the best reflects your interests and spend your time convincing others to do the same.
If you know that a politician doesn't represent your interests, don't vote for him just because he promises you a unicorn. "Getting money out of politics" is one of those mythical beasts; nobody who likes taking bribes is going to make bribery more difficult unless it benefits him in some way. Moreover, attempting to control other people's votes by restricting who can talk to them and how is essentially saying: "I know better than you, and so you're going to do it my way." That statement will definitely come back to haunt you, and it might not even take until the next election.
Were you surprised? Your individual vote only matters insofar as it represents a segment of the voting population that is large enough to affect the outcome of the election. In isolation, it is only 1/N and N is in the thousands or millions. If you want to create organizations for the purpose of coordinating your vote with those of like-minded people, or to spread the ideas you believe are best for your locality/state/country so that more people vote with you, then by all means I encourage you to do so. But everyone else has that right, too. Money is not some evil force; it is just an abstraction of value, and such value is completely subjective. If someone else wants to make a decision based upon flashy ads and empty words, who are you to question their judgment? That's the thing about democracy: assuming it exists, what you end up with is the least-objectionable outcome, which is typically sub-optimal for most people.
What, praytell, is the "importance of class"? All of their "class" didn't save the Roman patricians from the hordes of Goths and Vandals. What is class, anyway? A "classless" communist state with its dear leader and vanguard party is indistinguishable from an aristocracy. Human societies are inherently stratified. The only thing you can change is the way people advance through the strata, and even then only to an extent. There will always be people with more than you and people with less. Stop being jealous of the people with more and stop pretending to care about the people with less.
How has winning the election been working out for you?
If you want politicians to care about your vote, you need to give them a reason to want it. If you're already giving it to them, then they don't need to fight for it. There's no such thing as incorruptible politician, but they can still be taught. If giving favors to special interest groups started costing them elections, they'd be much less inclined to do it.
Never let principles get in the way of your pettiness.
Your contempt for the human race is duly noted.
Instead of good people being elected, the slime balls who can most effectively sway the opinion of the ignorant masses gets elected -- and then has to spend their time playing politics to keep that position.
As opposed to your alternate scheme, where fools elect conmen who then somehow manage to appoint supergeniuses to govern us all. How does that work, exactly?
The phrase "interstate commerce" does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The exact wording is (emphasis mine):
The Congress shall have Power
The purpose of this power was to allow the Federal government to intervene whenever a state imposed a trade restriction upon commerce with other states.
Still, one imagines the world would be a better place if all leaders were honestly working to improve the world for its people, rather than pursuing self-preservation, taking from other countries to better one's own, following religious nonsense, etc.
I might submit to absolute rule by angels, but all we have is men. We should expect no more from our leaders than from any other person, and base our decisions on how much power we grant to them accordingly.