A sincere question. Take Sheldon Adelson, for instance.
Suppose the math is true, and Romney loses.
Adelson spent x trying to install politicians who would save him tax money.
Let y = the money he would have spent if he'd just shut up and paid the tax bill Obama actually proposed.
I don't imagine this is an easy question to answer once you get into the weeds of it, but I'd offer the hypothesis that in the end, it's very possible that the absurdly wealthy are paying more for pointless advocacy than they would ever pay under an historically moderate tax regime.