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.
As mentioned upthread, this is the difference between democracy and rule by wealth.
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.
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.
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.
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.
His tax avoidance policies have a significant impact on the budgets of the larger Western countries.
AOC has a media profile, but - so far - almost no influence at all on US policy. That may change in the future, but given that the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist, it's possible she'll be sidelined into becoming her generation's powerless token left-leaning icon.
> the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist
They invited her to speak at the Dem convention. That makes her mainstream.
It's possible to use the same wealth efficiently to pay individuals to study the problem of which individuals to contribute to in order to acquire increasing and undue influence.
Your argument is that you shot at someone five times and failed to injure them thus guns doing kill people.
And that's just an example :-)
Activists do it as their day job, for billionaires it's just one of the many side effects of their wealth.
Meanwhile, Amazon was gifted to Bezos by God himself at the age of 15.
Bezos had to work to found a successful business. Which came with a ton of benefits.
Political power is a (un?)intended side effect of owning that successful business. That side effect is the problem.
I argue money is power in a free market society. I'm not sure there is a way to fix the first part of that sentence without completely modifying the latter.
[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-inequality-ine...
People borrow $300,000 all the time to buy a house.
AOC, as a party firebrand, has more political power than Jeff Bezos, although it manifests differently. You can argue that the power was "earned" (in the sense that AOC won a primary), but how is the power that Bezos has any less earned? The same argument applies not just to politicians, but literally any influential public figure (artists, authors, journalists, actors, etc.).