As much as they get really annoying after a while, I think politicians need to use many various types of media to get their message out. While much of it all depends on money (buying airtime and whatnot), money has long been a measure of popular support. Anybody can vote for someone, but only if you can back up your words with a campaign donation (even a small one) are you really helping someone to win an election.

Frankly, I don't like that money has become so important, but money is a measure for so many other things in American culture that there's no way around it.

Oh, and the campaign finance reform act actually didn't help matters one bit. A chapter in my political science course dealt directly with campaign finance laws, and what Congress passed a few years ago regarding reform does the reverse of its original intention. If I remember correctly, it reduced "soft money" donations. Soft money, because it could be anonymous and unlimited, was only allowed to be donated to a party as a whole, and the party could only use it to sponsor bland "get-out-the-vote" drives, not anything that would directly help any particular candidate. The reform bill lessened the impact of the already-bland soft money, but in return it increased allowances on "hard money," the real source of any politician's funding.

One final point:
Though diversity in the makeup of Congress and the Senate is desirable, it is not always thought of as absolutely necessary for making minority groups represented. Political Scientists have many theories on what defines representation, and not all of them necessitate representing minorities by being a minority.

Rich white guys have always been in power, but legislation has often favored minorities regardless. You don't have to be a Black person to make sure Black people are treated fairly. You just have to be a good person, regardless of your race.