Originally Posted by patteeu
You made the argument that the ability of super rich people to out spend others in the political arena is undemocratic. The logical extension of that argument is that it's undemocratic as long as anyone, including grocery baggers, can be out spent. If your argument isn't just an arbitrary attack on the 1%, then let's hear your logical distinction between what you call undemocratic and the grocery bagger extension.
That's a really good question, and it gets back to the heart of the OP's issue.
The 1% can fundamentally raise huge dollar amounts extremely casually that take gargantuan efforts from the rest of the electorate to match, if they can be matched at all.
That puts our government under the 1%'s thumbs. See the OP on this.
(And I'd actually expand that to the top 5%, but let's crawl before we can walk, shall we.)
The same cannot be said for any of the non-rich in this country. If we put the kabash on superPACs, and put maximums on campaign donations to something manageable like $2,000 a person or $4,000 a family, than you can't have a small collection of rich people casually, drastically outraising the rest of the electorate should the electorate fail to put forth some massive effort to keep up.