One of the reasons why the rich have rarely had to defend their own elections is that they really do not agree with any of the leading political views of "riches". Right-sighted people believe that it is right to be a heap of wealth. The centrist Democrats can not lend a fortune to their riches because they become increasingly wealthy people's party.
Socialists (an interesting situation) tend to believe that the question of ethics of being wealthy is insignificant because they are interested in how the state has divided wealth, rather than what they choose to do with their gains. G. A. As Cohen points out in his book, "If You are an Egalitarian, How Rich Are You Old?", Marxists are generally interested in removing capitalism from the middle, which prevents them from thinking about questions of the justice of personal preferences. If the problem of inequality is systemic, the rich do not really make a choice, but if they take care of their own class interests, it is a moral question to question the wealth holders in their hands (because the idea of moral or immoral proprietors in Marxist framework makes no sense).
As a matter of fact, there is a leftist argument that it is not good to give fortune under the name of donation. Because doing so does not change the balance of power in society, it causes a seemingly generous perception of capitalism. Ironically, as Oscar Wilde put it, "The worst slave owners are those who are kind to their slaves, because they prevent the ones who suffer from slavery from seeing the inside face of the system".
