The article is also odd that it says &quot;The role of a multimillionaire bolstering Cruz’s candidacy stands out in part because of an apparent contradiction.&quot;  There are plenty anti-establishment donors in the party, plus it ignores an important part of Republican party history (Goldwater for example) and how patron-style donors effect change in the party.<p>I would say the article uses a lot of loaded words to try to create controversy and contradiction where none exists.