> Is that a problem with income inequality, or a problem with political campaign financing rules?

In the US those are intertwined:

> The court held 5-4 that the free speech clause of the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures for political campaigns by corporations, including nonprofit corporations, labor unions, and other associations.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC

More speech for the rich.

The New York Times is funded by the rich. Should their speech be restricted too?

In the context elections and political sway, if you want to be closer to one-person-one-vote, then the New York Times would be restricted when it comes to elections so they do not have more sway than a random blogger.

What I mean is that they are only intertwined because of that campaign financing rule - they aren't inherently intertwined. And the more obvious and immediate solution (to me) is to change that rule and stop them from being intertwined rather than to somehow fix all wealth inequality.

As an absurd example, let's say I made a law that said that people with brown eyes can slap people with blue eyes. In this world, slapping people and eye-colour would be intertwined. This doesn't mean it's inherently a problem with brown eyes, or that eye colour and slapping are inherently intertwined. The obvious fix for this would be to change the rule rather than to change everyone's eye colours.

As in the US wealth and political donations are linked, the initial problem is that those two are linked together. There is nothing inherent that says you need to reduce income inequality to reduce the impact of wealth on politics - i.e. you can reduce the impact by changing legislation so the two aren't intertwined.

There's no way to make a sane case that it is the fault of a single law, or an idiosyncrasy of US campaign financing, that the amount of money you have has an decisive effect on politics. It's not a question of blue eyes vs. brown eyes, it's a question of wolves vs. kittens.

edit: If you want to do something politically that would harm my business, I can just silence you, have you jailed, or kill you. No campaign finance necessary. I can sponsor debates about the degree to which you molest children in my newspapers and on my television channels every day.

Hell, the money that goes to campaigns that isn't wasted to party graft just goes back to media owners, anyway. It's like US foreign aid, denominated in store credit at US favored contractors.