“Holistic” means that the applicant is treated as a whole, rather than evaluated in parts (like a point system). Indeed, UC admissions reading may be more holistic than Harvard, since UC readers assign a single score to each applicant, versus several category scores that Harvard readers assign.
“Holistic” does not necessarily mean that any arbitrary criteria are (supposed to be) used on a whim. Each college doubtlessly has policies and rules specifying what are and are not (supposed to be) used during admissions reading. A holistic admissions reading can exclude legacy, development, and race/ethnicity from consideration (as at UC), while a non-holistic point system admissions process can use any or all of them.
The story is not that people with money influence admissions, but that such influence is specifically limited by existing Regents Policy 2202, so that, in the UC context, it is (or at the very least looks like) cheating, even though it may be above-board at other schools. Big donors who would like to influence admissions with donations should have lobbied the Regents to remove Regents Policy 2202, rather than try to cheat their way around it.