Money will only get you so far in your public facing political ambitions if you are politically incompetent (Bloomberg) or devoid of charisma (Steyer). But money got both of them to the stage.
So what? They lost comprehensively. The point of politics isn’t to be heard. It’s to win so you can get what you want done done. If being heard led to political change US politics would be a great deal more libertarian. You don’t just need to be heard you need to persuade people to believe what you believe and to vote for you. Money doesn’t do that. It buys you a bigger megaphone but if no one likes the message they hear from you they won’t vote for you. Then you end up like Bloomberg, having spent a ton of money on a Presidential bid that failed utterly.
The point of politics is to get what you want done done. You don't have to win to do that. In fact, if you can achieve your goals without spending four years of your life being president of the US, that sounds so much less stressful.
The current president seems to crave attention, so that’s different. Many other wealthy men of power are happy to influence from behind.
A megaphone is a naive and unsuitable analogy.
Money buys you the two-party system where the only viable candidates are the ones that have been paid for, that do the bidding of the lobbyists and special interests that actually dictate national policies and run the country.
Money buys you the mass media, that surrounds and saturates the public with messages, dis/misinformation and values skewed to suit your agenda.
Money buys you the power to shape laws and regulations, so that your industry is.. You get the idea.
"Money governs access to political power in this country."
As an American, I'm ashamed to learned over the decades how much this statement is true. Didn't you see how money bought the presidency? How else did we end up with utterly corrupt and incompetent (or maliciously competent) politicians running the country?
We can agree to disagree on this point. :)
It is interesting to hear the other side of the argument. Perhaps I've become cynical over the years, witnessing what "duty to nation" really means in practice.
As far as national interest goes, public well-being seems low in priority, far below enriching those who hold the reins of power. The attempts to justify these skewed priorities, in my opinion, fall apart from the view of the people, who must live with the resulting social conditions.
How do you know he lost a billion dollars? Did you see his tax records? I'm pretty sure it's ain't because of the lack of trying if it was so.
In a normal situation, I can't imagine any scenario that a businessman can lose a billion dollars by becoming president. But this is the only guy that is literally capable of failing upwards.
--
Criminal indictments with the current administration : 215.
With Obama: 0, but... Obama did 8 years. The current one isn't even at 4.
I love how you point out that our criminal justice system wasn't prosecuting the criminals because it was infested with corrupt Obama appointees.
It's not zero though. Here's one convicted just last week:
"Former FBI lawyer Kevin Clinesmith pleaded guilty Wednesday in federal court to making a false statement in the first criminal case arising from U.S. Attorney John Durham’s review of the investigation into links between Russia and the 2016 Trump campaign."
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-fbi-lawyer-kevin-clinesm...
The crime was altering an email so that it would work as evidence to get the FISA court to allow spying on the Trump campaign. That is far worse than the incident with Nixon.