No, there will never be absolute equality of power. Certain people will always have a louder voice in the culture than others. But cultural power is fickle and comes and goes easily unlike wealth.
This is almost never the case. Power corrupts.
The primary source of political power Jeff Bezos has is his control of a very large employer. Employing lots of people gives you some power over local politics in the areas where you employ those people, and it gives you some level of influence with politicians who might be interested in ensuring you continue to employ lots of people, because it's good for the economy.
Your run of the mill billionaire heir/heiress that doesn't really do any useful economic activity doesn't have a huge amount of political power, in general. They probably have more than you or I do, but not a ton more. Certainly not more in (linear* proportion to the wealth difference.
Once you realize that the relationship between wealth and power is logarithmic, it's not really a super concerning relationship. There are other sources of power that are much more important, and much less transparent.
As mentioned upthread, this is the difference between democracy and rule by wealth.
Plenty of companies take a hit on their wallet when the CEO has political agendas the customers don't like.
You're welcome to take a hit to your wallet when you don't want to enrich a certain business leader. What you shouldn't have to do is take a hit to your wallet because you don't want to politically empower a certain business leader. This is especially true as there's less and less competition, and a few huge players control a disproportionate amount of the market (which is an issue on its own, albeit a separate one).
The idea behind a democracy for better or worse is one individual gets one vote. When you start having to figure out how you're voting by proxy through the leadership of each company you do business with, I'd wager, that wouldn't be within the spirit of the system.
Companies should compete for individual walletshare by merit, and it really should be apolitical. It won't always be, of course, but I think we're better off if we try and limit it. Conflating the two weakens both imo.
So if Amazon can't even control local elections, I wonder where all this supposed political power is?
Also, AOC was instrumental in preventing Amazon from establishing a second headquarters in NY. As a freshman Congressman.
It does in both instances. They're not orthogonal.
What about the power newspapers have over shaping the national dialogue? what about tv stations? What about unions? What about film makers, authors?
How do we limit their power? or is it only money that we're concerned about?
Also I note that the strategy to paint the political class (as opposed to e.g. the business class or some "new" political class) as all corrupt is a common strategy by totalitarians to undermine democratic processes.
A capitalist-ish economy is designed to create winners. If it wasn't Bezos, it would be someone else. What matters about Bezos' wealth (in this context) is not that this specific person controls it, but that we live in a society/economy where there will always be people who accrue this level of power and wealth. The problem isn't that Jeff Bezos is this rich, it's that we live in a society designed to concentrate money in this way.
ps. I was the 2nd employee at amazon, and worked closely with Bezos for 14 months.
REF: https://ballotpedia.org/New_York%27s_14th_Congressional_Dist...
But that's just a minor point, overall.