What makes a good campaign?

Your focus solely on money as an indicator of a campaign's success doesn't work this year.  There are other factors, like volunteers, organization, and free media, that have made just as much if not more difference than money.

Exhibit A: The Republicans
Before Iowa, few Republicans had raised more money than Ron Paul and few had raised less than Mike Huckabee.  Since Iowa, Huckabee continued to do relatively well and finished second in votes and delegates.  Even John McCain struggled to maintain sound financial footing into February.  The Republicans who did well seemed to benefit more from free media and their opponents' miscues than from their war chests.  Ron Paul and Mitt Romney raised more money than the rest and they both underperformed.

Exhibit B: The Democrats
The Democratic race is more interesting still.  Money has contributed to both Obama's and Clinton's success, but probably not as much as other factors have.  In Obama's case, his campaign is famous for its organization and volunteer base.  He does well with caucuses, where the better-organized campaign is often rewarded with strong showings.  Plus, his organization comes relatively cheap since it's largely driven by volunteers.  Clinton relies more on sheer familiarity.  Her name-recognition propels her through big states like California, Florida, Ohio, and Texas.  All the free media in the world can't compete with eight years as First Lady.

The point is, no matter who wins in November, the new president will be able to resist special interests because there were so many other factors that led to his/her election.