5 ms·

The fears of a plutocracy are overblown. You write that "money is power and speech". But people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney have tried to buy elections wit

The fears of a plutocracy are overblown. You write that "money is power and speech". But people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney have tried to buy elections with their personal fortunes and it didn't work (and self-funded candidates do worse, on average, than other candidates). Political inertia, the passions of the mob, and the maladaptive incentives facing legislators and bureaucrats are much more potent forces shaping our society than concentrated wealth.

drivebyacct2 16y ago
How can you say that? I'm pulling stuff out of my ass and I'd be willing to put money on the fact that over 95% of our elected officials fall in the top 20%, probably even the top 10%.
redwood 16y ago
Agreed today: but it could be that the wealthy will LEARN to be more controlling. Meg Whitman was a failure: but what if she's backed someone who was a great politician instead. And perhaps this is precisely how much of our politics already works. I don't fear this as much as some because I know that elites have always held undue influence, and that has been generally a good thing, with some bad apples throughout. Small numbers of people have always had extraordinary sway in societies. It's just that today, with media and technology, the ratios are larger than ever before. An interesting article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/business/26excerpt.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/business/26excerpt.html?_r...
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  >" Meg Whitman was a failure: but what if she's backed someone who was a great politician instead." It would be illegal, unfortunately. The amount of money you can spend on your own campaign is unlimited, the amount you can spend on others is capped. >"It's just that today, with media and technology, the ratios are larger than ever before." If you mean that more people can exert political influence, then I agree with you. Something like the Tea Party would have been impossible a few decades ago. The internet allows citizens to organize and exert pressure on politicians like never before. That said, 99.9% of the bureaucracy is unelected. Changing the thin film of politicians layered on top doesn't have as large of an effect on actual policy as we think.
  - rdl 16y ago
    Clearly the solution is for a politician to marry into wealth...
jonhendry 16y ago
"But people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney have tried to buy elections with their personal fortunes and it didn't work (and self-funded candidates do worse, on average, than other candidates)." Seeking office is probably the least effective way for wealth to exercise its power. They do a lot better from behind the scenes, giving smaller sums to many politicians (or threatening to withhold it) to buy influence. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan is more powerful than either Romney or Whitman, and he hasn't quit his day job or squandered a bunch of his personal fortune.
- lnguyen 16y ago
  They're after the public recognition and acknowledgement of their status. Satisfying their ego is what's important, not how much money they've spent or whether it could've been used in better ways.
  - jonhendry 16y ago
    True. That's why they aren't good examples for a limited influence and power of concentrated wealth.
- jacoblyles 16y ago
  It sounds like we both agree that the fear of the power of rich individuals with regards to campaign finance is overblown. People want to believe that there is some conspiracy of rich people screwing things up and if there weren't then everyone would have roses and unicorns. But I don't think that's quite right. Sure, entities that have a lobbying budget have a bigger say in policy than people without. But they get to influence a couple paragraphs in a 2,000 page bill. You add it all together and you get a bad bill that squanders public resources on private interests. The bill making process is broken, but that doesn't mean there is a cadre of rich people acting as puppet master. The United States government is more like a boat where the captain is drunk and passed out than one highjacked by some nefarious pirate.
gensym 16y ago
Political inertia and the passions of the mob can be purchased, as the Koch brothers know.

drivebyacct2 16y ago

How can you say that? I'm pulling stuff out of my ass and I'd be willing to put money on the fact that over 95% of our elected officials fall in the top 20%, probably even the top 10%.

redwood 16y ago

Agreed today: but it could be that the wealthy will LEARN to be more controlling. Meg Whitman was a failure: but what if she's backed someone who was a great politician instead. And perhaps this is precisely how much of our politics already works. I don't fear this as much as some because I know that elites have always held undue influence, and that has been generally a good thing, with some bad apples throughout. Small numbers of people have always had extraordinary sway in societies. It's just that today, with media and technology, the ratios are larger than ever before. An interesting article on the subject: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/business/26excerpt.html?_r=1&hp http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/business/26excerpt.html?_r...

jacoblyles 16y ago
>" Meg Whitman was a failure: but what if she's backed someone who was a great politician instead." It would be illegal, unfortunately. The amount of money you can spend on your own campaign is unlimited, the amount you can spend on others is capped. >"It's just that today, with media and technology, the ratios are larger than ever before." If you mean that more people can exert political influence, then I agree with you. Something like the Tea Party would have been impossible a few decades ago. The internet allows citizens to organize and exert pressure on politicians like never before. That said, 99.9% of the bureaucracy is unelected. Changing the thin film of politicians layered on top doesn't have as large of an effect on actual policy as we think.
- rdl 16y ago
  Clearly the solution is for a politician to marry into wealth...

jonhendry 16y ago

"But people like Meg Whitman and Mitt Romney have tried to buy elections with their personal fortunes and it didn't work (and self-funded candidates do worse, on average, than other candidates)." Seeking office is probably the least effective way for wealth to exercise its power. They do a lot better from behind the scenes, giving smaller sums to many politicians (or threatening to withhold it) to buy influence. Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan is more powerful than either Romney or Whitman, and he hasn't quit his day job or squandered a bunch of his personal fortune.

lnguyen 16y ago
They're after the public recognition and acknowledgement of their status. Satisfying their ego is what's important, not how much money they've spent or whether it could've been used in better ways.
- jonhendry 16y ago
  True. That's why they aren't good examples for a limited influence and power of concentrated wealth.
jacoblyles 16y ago
It sounds like we both agree that the fear of the power of rich individuals with regards to campaign finance is overblown. People want to believe that there is some conspiracy of rich people screwing things up and if there weren't then everyone would have roses and unicorns. But I don't think that's quite right. Sure, entities that have a lobbying budget have a bigger say in policy than people without. But they get to influence a couple paragraphs in a 2,000 page bill. You add it all together and you get a bad bill that squanders public resources on private interests. The bill making process is broken, but that doesn't mean there is a cadre of rich people acting as puppet master. The United States government is more like a boat where the captain is drunk and passed out than one highjacked by some nefarious pirate.

gensym 16y ago

Political inertia and the passions of the mob can be purchased, as the Koch brothers know.