This analogy doesn't work for me. You are equating different amounts of wealth (generally considered a good thing at any level) with different amounts of poison

This analogy doesn't work for me. You are equating different amounts of wealth (generally considered a good thing at any level) with different amounts of poison. You also repeat a concern made by many critics of Graham's essay, the connection between wealth and the ability to influence public policy, access to politicians and so on. Positing that the wealth is the source of the problem and suggesting the limiting the wealth would limit the influence also doesn't hold together for me. I'll repeat I comment I made a few weeks ago: > There is another way to look at this problem though by asking why there is so much money being directed towards elections and politicians? One cause is the increased size and scope of government. When the role of government expands into more aspects of our lives via various taxes, regulations, subsidies, penalties, and so on it creates an incentive to influence the creation of those taxes, regulations, subsidies, and penalties. > A smaller role for government, in particular a reduction in policies that try to pick winners and losers explicitly (e.g. taxes or fees that favor particular companies or industries), could reduce the incentive to influence the creation of "targeted" legislation.