I disagree on all counts. It may not be strong enough, but it is literally his money. He can burn it all in flames and you would have zero to say about it ( unless maybe ypu were his neigbor and smoke was too bad ).

And how is that covert? We are all talking about it. People seem to freak out, because it appears to be working, which is interesting.

Lastly, how am I passive? I said I would take his money if offerred. I placed myself right on the fence..

As for lack of candidates, I do not think we are at culling stage yet.

I'm surprised there are people not a little bit ashamed to sell their social trust. To me Bloomberg clearly is corrupting people with this. And somehow they seem to reason that they stand above it as they're shilling him (transparently, they imagine) to their friends. To me it seems that it's people who have been forced to take such a choice too many times to feel the disgrace anymore.

I find it morally acceptable to take his money if you need it. But let's not forget what that transaction means. It's the powerful forcing your outward attitude towards them. You're not a reputable citizen if your speech is controlled by your lord.

Believe it or not, I largely agree with the sentiment expressed. I suffer no illusions in that regards.

That said, riddle me this as it may yield some interesting answers. Do you believe there is such a thing as too much power in one set of hands? If so, is one Bloomberg too much?

It's not really a question one could answer no to in my view. The historical struggles against absolutism really don't allow any other answer but that power requires powerful checks. And that some forms of power are not legitimate at all.

With capitalism the solution was roughly that some things were taken out of money's reach. You can't buy them. Still I say that a guy like Bloomberg has too much power. It's not like the struggle is over.

So the real question becomes, how can that much power be diffused in a safe manner?