2 ms·
"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, o
by 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 agoThey'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 agoTrue. That's why they aren't good examples for a limited influence and power of concentrated wealth.
- jacoblyles 16y agoIt 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.