I just watched this cool short video.
The author made the point that even places in which a candidate has no chance of winning the electoral votes, there is lots of money to be had. I wonder if there is anything about the relationship of these variables. What I mean is that if people have a desired level of political participation, then a republican whose state starts to become really democratic may feel a greater urge to send money to republican candidates to make up for the fact that their VOTE is largely irrelevant.
Depending on your political persuasion, you might see this as a good or bad thing. In one sense, it means that poor republicans in California really have no way to “export” their political influence. Rich Democrats in Texas however could easily make their preferences known. On the other hand, it mean that people who want to be active in politics still can be.
In any case, the electoral college may be responsible for some of the money in politics.