> He said he didn’t want to antagonize certain wealthy congregants on whose generosity the congregation depended. > “I’d appreciate it if you didn’t criticize

> He said he didn’t want to antagonize certain wealthy congregants on whose generosity the congregation depended. > “I’d appreciate it if you didn’t criticize Wall Street,” he said, explaining that several of the trustees were investment bankers. This sort of shit is exactly why income and wealth inequality are such a big deal. It's so much more than any principle of "fairness" - it's about representation and balance of power. Even if the entire population is, in a material sense, perfectly looked after, if some fraction of a percent own or control the bulk of the wealth, then they will have most of the power even if society keeps the veneer of democracy in place. I don't have any issue with the Koch brothers in particular, but no one should be able to purchase laws or see their considerable wealth translate into outsized political power. No democracy can survive that forever, even if with an engaged and conscientious electorate.