Murdoch's own papers claim credit for election victories. I don't know the exact conversion rate from dollars to votes, but it's absurd to suggest one doesn't exist and that Murdoch's organizations don't know what it is.
Even billionaires and millionaires who dont own media companies have outsized influence. They can fund politicians they prefer to an extent that a rival might not be able to match. They can pay for lobbyists. There are a myriad of ways that dollars turn into votes without a mustachioed man walking around with a bag of money being involved. Mass movements aside the working class isnt out there propping up politicians.
You are sloppily equating "one man, one vote" and "political sway". Further, Murdoch, via his media outlets, does not directly control any voter. Does he influence voters? Without a doubt. But there is no Fox News rep checking voters ballots to ensure rightvote.
> myriad of ways that dollars turn into votes
'What is the conversion rate? What are the specific mechanics? Whose speech should we limit in order to limit political sway? How do we avoid violating the 1st amendment in doing so?
Do you think it uncivil to ask people to justify their claims with evidence?
They write:
> One man one vote may be true in theory
But then:
> but in practice Rupert Murdoch has fat more political sway than anyone on this thread precisely because of his wealth
So they equate "one man one vote" to "political sway", two very different things. Nowhere is equal "political sway" enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. Whereas, "one man, one vote" is, absolutely. And "one man, one vote" is not theoretical. It is literally in force and practiced.