Fatcat Political Candidates

The notion of very wealthy individuals capitalizing on their financial resources and position to successfully enter politics isn't anything new...we've seen this done on a dynastic scale: just look at the Rockefellers and Kennedys from the past century.  But recently the idea has arisen that since candidates who are already super-rich cannot be corrupted by special interests and don't need to seek campaign resources, then they are somehow nobler than the "rabble" of less-affluent aspirants who must seek out others for contributions.  Our current president is obviously one of these fatcats and has made much of his wealth, not only to give him an image of integrity and independence among his supporters but also as a sign that here is a success story, someone who works hard and knows how the system works on many levels.  In the wake of Donald Trump's 2016 election, we're seeing more of this type using essentially the same strategy, albeit with different takes on the issues. I remember billionaire real estate entrepreneur Jeff Greene's candidacy for the Democratic nomination for Florida governor in 2018 and three billionaires who either were or are running against Trump for president in 2020: former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz, who has since dropped out due to professed health concerns, retired hedge fund manager Tom Steyer, and former New York mayor Mike Bloomberg.  As for Greene, after essentially torpedoing the efforts of his chief rivals through vicious negative ads, Florida Democratic voters in the primary rejected both his candidacy and those he attacked, resulting in a weak, fourth-tier candidate getting the nomination.  Steyer and Bloomberg are both faced with Democratic Party rules for their debates which require a certain threshold number of people giving them campaign donations before they qualify.  The silliness of this rule, which was originally intended to keep candidates from funding their campaigns primarily by cash-rich special interests (with implied strings on the contributions), is actually making giving money as important as expressing voting preferences in public opinion polls.  Steyer has tried to adapt to this rule while Bloomberg is bypassing it, blanketing the media with ads and placing his presidential hopes on "Super Tuesday", March 3rd...when many states vote for their delegates...

Where do I stand on the super-rich and politics?  It depends on their political philosophies and where they stand on the issues.  Do they have an elitist notion that by dint of their wealth and social status they are better than everybody else and merit privileged treatment or do they recognize that this great nation is a pluralistic and diverse society whose 300+ million citizens have their own legitimate contributions and concerns?  But since just about all the major candidates for president, billionaires or not, are comfortably affluent and probably think they're a cut or two above the rest of us, I would ask the same question about each one of them.  Of course, I have just one vote for president in the primary election (in Florida) on March 17th and then just one more on election day in November...who knows in which direction the malleable electorate will allow itself to be manipulated and swayed, but that's democracy for you...I can only do my own miniscule part and then brave whatever the results are...