I agree with you, of course. Though I'd say it's not just wealth, but political clout and "connectedness" as well. There are quite a few influential community/union leaders that aren't all that wealthy, but command a great deal of political power. Both by virtue of the people who they "lead" and the contacts they have in various levels of government.
What I'm trying to point out with the above is that: We are already assuming that the wealthy have a selfish or non-altruistic motive behind their actions, simply by virtue of them having wealth. If we go down that route, then we essentially need to admit that the problem isn't that the wealthy are selfish, but that their wealth enables them to exert that selfishness much more.
You are most certainly right that this is a flaw of government, or democracy in general. However, it is not a flaw of capitalism. It is, in fact, a virtue of capitalism: that money represents our "vote". But that vote doesn't magically stay with us, it get's transferred every time we "vote", or buy things.
What I'm trying to point out with the above is that: We are already assuming that the wealthy have a selfish or non-altruistic motive behind their actions, simply by virtue of them having wealth. If we go down that route, then we essentially need to admit that the problem isn't that the wealthy are selfish, but that their wealth enables them to exert that selfishness much more.
You are most certainly right that this is a flaw of government, or democracy in general. However, it is not a flaw of capitalism. It is, in fact, a virtue of capitalism: that money represents our "vote". But that vote doesn't magically stay with us, it get's transferred every time we "vote", or buy things.
</rant>