When you make the case that clearly, the answer is clearly no.
Why is that the case? I think the reason is that it would dilute, in section 3, the right that belongs to the citizen to make these choices.
I do note that in the last election in the United States, the party that spent about 50% more than the winning party lost, so money doesn't necessarily buy you an election. However, the influence is what is inappropriate, in my view, under section 3, because it is a right of citizenship, and that right should be defended aggressively by Parliament. I think that's Parliament's duty.