“Sadly, with our political system so dominated by money, ‘equal political rights’ is a cruel deception. Does anyone doubt that political influence is skewed toward the rich, who can afford, among other things, political contributions and lobbyists?” This statement by distinguished economist Alan Blinder captures the fear of many that as the One Percent gain a higher share of income, they will buy policies that further favor them. Some say it has already happened.

The evidence for money buying elections is actually very weak. The advocacy group Americans for Campaign Reform studied the subject and concluded that money is important for unknown candidates opposing incumbents, but that the benefit of more money falls off rapidly. At very high levels of campaign spending, more money even means fewer votes.

Note that Blinder wrote his caution about the rich’s influence on politics during the presidency of a black liberal who defeated a hedge-fund millionaire. The 99 percent have a lot more votes than the one percent.

The One Percent includes notable liberals, such as Michael Bloomberg and George Soros. One analysis found that there were 22 billionaires among the top 100 individuals donating to political groups. Thirteen of these 22 gave to liberal or Democratic causes. Further, some of the conservative donors, such as the much-vilified Charles and David Koch, make little if any contribution to their narrow self-interest, but rather focus on free market economics in general.

Environmental groups, often at loggerheads with corporations, tend to be funded by the upper classes. Although a group may have many $100 donors, a few million-dollar donations are far more important. Add in the foundations set up by previous generations of super-rich, such as the Rockefeller Foundation, and plenty of money is circulating from the One Percent to opponents of the One Percent.

That said, there are certainly members of the One Percent who are trying to further their own financial interests. That does not prove, however, that the favor-seeking crowd will parlay their past successes into future victories.

Conclusion

This article concludes the series on the economic impacts of inequality. I conclude that there will be little or no impact on overall economic growth from the current trends in inequality. That is not to say that inequality is unimportant; simply that the case for public policy must be made on issues of justice and fairness, not the good of the economy.