Do wonder how much of the filmed fundraiser's talk was just spiel, a come on, to suggest that a donor who gave £250,000 was going to get results, when,in fact, the chances of their changing government policy, or making it, were non-existent. It's easy to see how the donor might think that , if he doesn't give what is really a very small sum for a rich man, he won't have a ticket in the lottery, as it were. What evidence do we have of Cameron being swayed by such a donation? It seems to be none.
After all, the influence on policy is whether the public will accept it. If it won't, the party's time in office will be short-lived. The interests of an individual will be overridden by that.