Deny the influence of money on political outcomes all you want, but Art Pope's actions shows he strongly disagrees with your assessment. Art Pope also invested his personal time and money overseeing the gerrymandering process to make sure the NC GOP got that right too. Gerrymandering is nothing new to politics, what is relatively new is having access to sophisticated software that so advantageously redraws the districts, it virtually guarantees victory. When a majority of North Carolinians vote for Democratic representation in the US Congress and the vast majority of representatives are Republican, it is difficult to believe the "Democratic Process" is alive and well in the state. What we witnessed in this last election is called voter disenfranchisement. If you are Ok with negating the concept of one person, one vote, you are Ok with the way NC runs its elections.
Regarding money, there have been a lot of studies regarding the effect of advertising on votes, and the results are mixed. My opinion is that it only impacts a very small percentage of voters. In a close race, it might matter, but in most races, it doesn't matter so much.
Regarding representative elections, vote totals are irrelevant. One person, one vote applies to the district one is in, but from a statewide perspective (or national if we are talking about congress) it doesn't matter and that is the way the founders designed it.
Case in point, Mel Watts won 80% of the vote in his district (created by the democrats btw), which skewed the hell out of the vote totals for NC house of representatives. And as I said, if they can compare the results to previous elections and show some discrepancy between current vote totals and vote totals from previous elections, then the article's point might be meaningful.