Let us clarify terms: The USA ( Western Europe) is NOT a Democracy, it is an Oligarchy.

The USA is upset that other nations do as they please, while it does as it pleases! That is the backdrop to this tale of the tape.

Corruption was one symptom of Hungary's weakening democratic institutions, 

http://news.yahoo.com/u-calls-ban-entry-six-hungarians-warning-clean-181645487.html

I had to read this twice to make sure I was not asleep. The balls on these people. That was a statement by an apparatchik in DC. Yes DC that den of Democracy, devout and doubled down on the Democracy ... * narrator gags on own sarcasm *

Um we here in the USA have a 'democracy' ( really it is a plutocratic oligarchy ) in which 1% of the people have 32% of the wealth, and give about 75% of all the political donations. 1.2 billion for the Congress both house and Senate Races. Those votes don't come from heaven. And people making 30 thousand and giving 10-50$ are not putting up that money.

2014 Campaign Contribution Limits
On Nov. 6, 2002, the day after the 2002 midterm elections, a new set of federal campaign finance laws went into effect. Known as the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA), the law increased the contribution limits for individuals giving to federal candidates and political parties.
Every two years, the Federal Election Commission updates certain contribution limits -- such as the the amount individuals may give to candidates and party committees -- that are indexed to inflation.
Up until April 2, 2014, there were also aggregate limits on how much individuals could give to candidates, parties and PACs. On that date, the Supreme Court said the limit was unconstitutional in a case called McCutcheon v. FEC. The limit for the 2014 cycle was to be $123,200. Now, however, donors can give to as many candidates and committees as they want -- though they still need to abide by the per-candidate, per-PAC and per-party committee limits -- without bumping into an overall cap.
Source: 2014 Campaign Contribution Limits | OpenSecrets
Address : https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/limits.php

And again a 'democracy' usually does not ensure it richest members the ability to buy votes, offices and races ... that is a feature of Oligarchies.

Notice the Money Elite at the top in total control and the Demos or People as a cypher and really subjects not rulers of any kind. Thus NO Demos ( people ) Archy ( rule) But Oli ( few ) garchy based on Plutocratic principles or on amount of wealth. Thus wealth is the ruling power.

The good thing is that wealth comes and goes and Oligarchy is inherently unstable and as such no matter what tweaking or padding you put in place they will always either resolve to an more federated aristocracy tempered by what are in real life democratic/meritorious tendencies or a more centralized bueacratic tyranny styling itself as a monarch of some sort or another. Thus it is seems more desirable to simple skip this see-saw and either go to one or stick with the other. I would prefer the merit based system over the money based one. Just saying. I would rather leaders EARN their place than BUY their place and that ethical merit count more than GDP or ROI. Seems more sensible all things taken as a whole.