I’d say even Newsome’s 30 million is too much to be holding office.
That level is far from a billionaire, but someone with that level of wealth is going to be incapable of identifying with the average American they’re supposed to represent.
Part of that is we should be electing younger politicians. A 70 year amassing 30 mill over a lifetime is cool. A 40 year old with 30 million in the bank is planning on investing that money another 40 years and that’s going to influence their votes even if they don’t realize it.
If a person has so much money that they could stop working for the rest of their lives and live an upper class lifestyle in their area, I think they would be a bad choice for office. Governor, senator, etc. I could see maybe Mayor.
Nah, because even if they were unbiased, they’d treat it as a hobby and their own investments as their real job.
If they want to help the community, they can do it by funding social programs. Build a park, provide job schooling or even just after school programs.
Loads of ways that with their wealth they exclusively could help. When someone who actually represents the citizens can hold office.
I’d love to see wealth tied to area you represent. If Silicon valley wants Newsome, cool, elect him in the house. But the Governor of a state should be within at most 10x the wealth of median constituent.
For what it’s worth, JB Pritzker seems relatively decent from everything I’ve seen about him (and I have lived in IL while he was governor).
I definitely would not consider him a perfect candidate, but I would probably vote for him again over most Democrats if I still lived there.
Also, if I lived in CA, there is no chance in hell I would vote Newsom after he threw trans people under the bus. IDK if I would vote for this guy, that depends on the other options available.
NO BILLIONAIRES. Don’t care if you create slick ChatGPT written ads.
I’d say even Newsome’s 30 million is too much to be holding office.
That level is far from a billionaire, but someone with that level of wealth is going to be incapable of identifying with the average American they’re supposed to represent.
Part of that is we should be electing younger politicians. A 70 year amassing 30 mill over a lifetime is cool. A 40 year old with 30 million in the bank is planning on investing that money another 40 years and that’s going to influence their votes even if they don’t realize it.
If a person has so much money that they could stop working for the rest of their lives and live an upper class lifestyle in their area, I think they would be a bad choice for office. Governor, senator, etc. I could see maybe Mayor.
Nah, because even if they were unbiased, they’d treat it as a hobby and their own investments as their real job.
If they want to help the community, they can do it by funding social programs. Build a park, provide job schooling or even just after school programs.
Loads of ways that with their wealth they exclusively could help. When someone who actually represents the citizens can hold office.
I’d love to see wealth tied to area you represent. If Silicon valley wants Newsome, cool, elect him in the house. But the Governor of a state should be within at most 10x the wealth of median constituent.
That’s fair. Maybe there needs to be an elected powerless rich person. Like… ambassador…
For what it’s worth, JB Pritzker seems relatively decent from everything I’ve seen about him (and I have lived in IL while he was governor).
I definitely would not consider him a perfect candidate, but I would probably vote for him again over most Democrats if I still lived there.
Also, if I lived in CA, there is no chance in hell I would vote Newsom after he threw trans people under the bus. IDK if I would vote for this guy, that depends on the other options available.