I don't understand most of what I read in this thread.
With regards to the topic, I think most of the models that were so heavily quoted 20 plus years ago were wrong. There were other models, but they provided nothing that would sell a magazine or newspaper, or put people's rear in seats at major fundraisers. People that think status quo is likely and acceptable just don't get that energized to go out and support that position with $.
Big Companies throw money at both parties, but not typically at two conflicting view points. NGO's existence are largely based on one directive, and that is to influence politics. "Give us some money to help us organize for our cause." For large companies, or owners of privately held companies, influencing politics might make the top 10. "Give us some money for a good or service that you want or need."
I work for a large company that has spent millions this year and last to further research for a current 'hot button' topic. My company has millions and millions budgeted to spend on this issue in the future years as well. All $ being spent on serious studies and done in collaboration with people from both sides of the political isle and all different view points on the subject matter. Meanwhile, there are daily press releases and planned protests from the other side, with absolutely no money from that side being invested in research. The other side is best described as WBCish. You can't argue with them, but they really don't do anything to make conditions better for anyone else. They just want visibility and to make their supporters feel good about themselves.