But you know all this, so the feudal comparison is pretty melodramatic and ridiculous.
You can be a CEO if you want. Give it a try!
In other words, vote buying is not necessarily why votes correlate with contributions along policy lines.
Fact: You can be a CEO.
Fact: You can be elected to vote on laws.
Fact: There is no financial or divine right requirement to run for office or be a CEO.
[1] https://www.ifs.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Bronars-1997-...
"Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence."
And have you seen any discussion of who exactly ends up as CEO of say fortune 500 companies. There is a distinct lack of women, and of the women who are represented there is a slant to those with wealthy family backgrounds.
Here’s some job ads for CEO: https://www.indeed.com/m/jobs?q=CEO
You’ll notice there’s nothing about gender in any of them, or being born to wealthy parents.
Consider that maybe the limiting factor to becoming a CEO is yourself, and not society, men, rich people, discrimination, etc.
If I can add $20m of profit to the bottom line of an organisation, then there is nothing wrong with capturing some of that value, no?
Call it CEO or entrepreneur, at the end of the day, it's the same job, with the same end result.
How much value did that create or protect? How much of that was I allowed to capture compared to the CEO? A fraction.