[sacomo]

But that is the crux of the issue. Wealth is political power. The only way to mitigate wealth's influence on political institutions requires drastic, systemic changes. The wealthy can be as well meaning as they want, but no individual should control that many resources in a democratic society.

[nicoburns]

I don't think it's possible to prevent wealth from having political influence. Wealth is economic power by definition. The only way to significantly reduce the impact of wealth on democracy is to reduce the amount of wealth that wealthy people have.

[underseacables]

Absolute. Wealth is power. Power is not having to worry about your safety and security. When you have so much money that you’re not answerable to anyone, you don’t worry about paying the bills or the mortgage, you can really speak your mind and spend your money in ways that others simply cannot. That is true power, imo.

[nicoburns]

> When you have so much money that you’re not answerable to anyone, you don’t worry about paying the bills or the mortgage, you can really speak your mind and spend your money in ways that others simply cannot

Indeed. And when you have so much money that you can offer that same freedom to others (or smaller but still significant improvements to their lives) then you inevitably gain influence over them (on average, if not always in specific cases).

[amelius]

> The only way to mitigate wealth's influence on political institutions requires drastic, systemic changes.

This is what poor people should be voting for, but somehow they never do.