> What do you mean by 'cost of influence'? If I don't want influence, is it optional?

Every political system has patrician and plebeian tracks. In America, the former can be bought (versus solely inherited). Being a politically-active patrician in New York involves an expensive list of patronage. That’s where the power players are, and that’s where you’ll cut casual deals.

It’s optional. And it’s different from civic responsibility. But unless you think the status quo is hunky dory, you’re going to want to change things, and the cost of access varies geographically.

The people who can influence aren't making merely 300k, and they certainly aren't caring much about the cost of their influence.

> people who can influence aren't making merely 300k, and they certainly aren't caring much about the cost of their influence

I’ve seen billionaires quibble over ca. $25k tables. And $300k gives you enough to, outside tier 1 cities, access, if not be kingmaker on, state politics on the patrician track. The cartoon impression of American high politics is stupidly off, starting with how coördinated it presumes the system to be.

What sort of power plays are we meant to be doing? Is this like 'The Alpha does x y z' type stuff?

Think of an example such as you'd like a better public school system in your district. If you live in a rural county in Oklahoma of 20k people, you could likely get on the school board without any opposition and start making changes. Vs trying to change anything about the public school system in San Francisco.