F*ck Billionaires running for President. Period. Not even "good" ones.

[Tom Rinaldo]

And yes I believe that some people who are worth Billions are good and decent on the whole. Some obviously have great talent, at least in certain areas. And no doubt there are individual billionaires, Tom Steyer might be a good example, whose views I largely agree with. But America is a nation of over 300 million.There's got to be hundreds of thousands of people, at the very minimum, whose political views I largely agree with.

We are in danger of allowing vast wealth to create a new political aristocracy in America: Those who can self fund their own campaigns; Those who can buy whatever staff time is needed to get onto 50 State ballots running as an Independent; Those who can simply bypass any and all primary elections and still make the final run off for President.

That undermines the very foundation of democracy, especially in an electronic era where media platforms become our new Town Halls. When it used to be virtually a given that one needed to have a long prior career in public service to rise to the ranks of a presidential candidate, some fundamental vetting took place long before that person's name could appear on a November ballot as a viable candidate for President. Even in those infrequent instances in American history when non-elected officials ran for President, they were Generals who had served their nation for decades prior. Men, like Ike, who could have made vast personal fortunes in the private sector but chose a life of service instead. Now none of that is needed. Now any billionaire can buy a shot at the Presidency any damn time they want.

It is simply wrong. This voter for one has a message to those who seek my support; "Billionaires need not apply."

[sarcasmo]

1. Agreed. No Schultz, No Bloomberg, No Dimon.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Yes, though to be fair I will at least say this of Bloomberg

He did run for a lower office first. He does have a record of public service that can be scrutinized by voters. And, at least for now, he seems to be considering going through the primary route to secure a spot on the ballot. But even with all that considered, it is in my mind fundamentally antidemocratic when a person's personal wealth automatically makes them a viable option for leadership over many who have spent entire careers advancing the public interest.

[RobinA]

12. Well, I'm Anybody But Trump

so my preferred candidate is Bloomberg. Why? He's white, he's male, and he's rich. In other words, I think he has what it takes to get elected. I will vote for whoever the candidate is, but I think we need to be real about electabiility. I voted for Hilary and actually wanted Hilary to win, but here in PA she pulled way too many MAGAs out of the woodwork and Trump got the state.

We can cry all night about "the state of things" that this or that candidate can't get elected due to his/her demographics, but first our candidate has to win and this Repub stronghold broken.

[Revanchist]

56. Bloomberg is an opportunist

Who changed parties for electability. Say what you want about Sanders, at least he never switched to Republican to get elected.

[brush]

34. Agreed. And this...FDR.

[SCantiGOP]

48. This approach not only disqualifies FDR

But John and Robert Kennedy would be banned by the DU braintrust.

[brush]

50. Absolutely, the Kennedys also.

[Tom Rinaldo]

63. Adjusted for inflation FDR's wealth peaked at about 60 Million dollars

That is 940 Million dollars short of being a Billionaire, let alone a multi-Billionaire.
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/12/top-10-richest-us-presidents.html#slide=3

As to the Kennedy's; "Јоhn F. Кеnnеdу’ѕ nеt wоrth wаѕ еѕtіmаtеd tо bе $100 mіllіоn аt thе tіmе оf hіѕ dеаth. Rоbеrt Кеnnеdу’ѕ wіfе Еthеl Кеnnеdу’ѕ nеt wоrth іѕ соnѕіdеrеd tо bе $50 mіllіоn...
"The estimated net worth of the Kennedy Family considering the fortune of its top 30 members is $1.2 billion."
https://www.thewealthrecord.com/celebs-bio-wiki-salary-earnings-2019-2020-2021-2022-2023-2024-2025/other/kennedy-family-net-worth/

"At the time of his death from brain cancer in 2009, Ted Kennedy was at the peak of his wealth. His financial filings through December 2008 showed assets between $45 million and $150 million, The Daily Beast revealed in 2009."
https://www.newsweek.com/kennedy-net-worth-wealth-chappaquiddick-ted-kennedy-kennedy-family-how-rich-874676

In my view you are missing the significance of the magnitude of scale difference between being a multi-millionaire and a multi-billionaire. If one factors in the campaign costs of the 2016 presidential election...

"Among the two nominees, Hillary Clinton's campaign spent a total of $768 million, vastly more than the $398 million Donald Trump's campaign spent,"
https://www.investopedia.com/insights/cost-of-becoming-president/


...Trump's relative budget campaign cost in the same ballpark as the entire net worth of John, Bobby and Ted Kennedy combined.

Here's the thing. Look at Howard Schultz for one relevant example.
"His net worth has been estimated at $3.4 billion."
https://www.businessinsider.com/starbucks-howard-schultz-net-worth-2018-6

If someone like Schultz wants to he can spend a billion of his own money to instantly self finance his own campaign and still have 2.4 Billion dollars left over to play around with after the checks clear. That is a clear qualitative rather than mere quantitative magnitude of wealth over what FDR and JFK could have spent from their own fortune had they wanted to. And it changes the basic dynamics of how an individual can self promote their own brand without needing to show any ability to win support from a broad range of party leaders, let alone average Americans, in order to buy the presidency.


And for the record what I wrote in my OP was an opinion, one I hope increasing numbers of Americans come to share. It is not "an approach", it is not proposed (probably unconstitutional) legislation.

[at140]

2. Simple Solution--make all elections by tax payer funding only

Make all private or corporate funding illegal. No PACS allowed.
Allocate equal campaign funds to all candidates who qualify.
Qualifications can be determined by minimum standing in polls.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. I will gladly review my above opinion once we have accomplished what you suggest. n/t

[at140]

7. How do you propose to stop certain Billionaires from running?

There is no chance of such law passing in congress to establish forbidding certain individuals from running. Who chooses them? Congress?

Limiting time and personal contributions to campaigns is already the method used by some democratic countries. Our campaign spending has reached obscene amounts. That is what empowers the Billionaires.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. I like what "most democratic countries" are doing. That's not us now

Of course we need to follow. Easier said then done, though clearly worth the fight. I would never support laws limiting certain individuals from running based on criteria such as personal wealth. But there is such a thing as cultural norms, and how they get established, and how they get over ridden. The entire period of the Trump administration has been a giant civics lesson on the importance of established "norms" which are what in many instances govern what happens and does not happen in politics - not only the specifics of legislation and our constitution.

We can not silently become part of the legitimization of accepting Billionaires as default political leaders. We have to push back against that, and I do not see enough of that yet. Sure people argue about whether this or that Billionaire would be a good President, and whether his or her candidacy is a positive or negative political development. Too little is being said about why they even merit our consideration in the first place, other than the fact that by simply expending a small fraction of their personal wealth they can instantly enter the upper ranks of who stands a chance to lead the American democracy.

[SCantiGOP]

20. Speaking of billionaires

Does your ban also include no billionaires as Speaker of the House?

[at140]

47. LOL

why not extend it to all 100 senate positions?

[Proud Liberal Dem]

40. There may not be anything we can do legally to prohibit it

but we can certainly make it politically unacceptable by categorically rejecting them, speaking out against what they're trying to do. I mean, they can still legally run if they want. We just don't have to accept/normalize it.

[bdamomma]

65. K&R

I like your comment.

We just don't have to accept/normalize it.

[snort]

3. Agreed

[democratisphere]

5. Wall Street Billionaires are most of the problem and sure as hell

no part of the solution.

[jrthin]

9. Agreed! Agreed! Agreed!

[ProfessorPlum]

10. "We are in danger of allowing vast wealth to create a new political aristocracy in America"

that ship has sailed, long ago.

[llmart]

22. The Roosevelts and Kennedys come to mind.

FDR and JFK were wealthy and from wealthy families, but they really could relate to the common man.

Yes, that ship has sailed.

A person can be from a wealthy family and still have empathy and care for the less fortunate, but on the flip side, a person can be poor or middle class and be a real asshole.

[Sgent]

39. I mean

Washington and (esp) Jefferson were fairly wealthy as well.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. It's not a question of empathy. And the ship has left the dock but still is in the harbor...

This nation has a long history of wealthy people running for office, sure. Even adjusted for inflation though, we have only had one billionaire President. Coming in second was George Washington clocking in at at a little over half a billion (in current dollars as are all the figures mentioned below), one sixth the wealth of Trump. And aside from "founding fathers", no one else was worth over 150 Million.These figures are from post #30 and they seem to include fortunes that were amassed by former Presidents after they left office.

So what's the difference one can ask between having $100 million and having 1 billion? 900 million dollars of course, and that's not just being cute. It costs more than 100 million nowadays to run for President. Even most super wealthy folks need to build a network of support at least to run for President, they're not going to spend their last dime on a campaign. But a billionaire can spend 100 million running for President and still have 900 million left over to play with even if he or she loses. They could do it for the ego rush alone and still be god awful rich even if every dime they spent campaigning came from their own pocket.

Politicians who came from wealth in the past rose to political power from inside of political parties. You mention FDR and Kennedy; both of them ran for and held lower offices and had track records of public service before they ran for President. Kennedy couldn't even win the Democratic nomination the first time he sought it, and it was touch and go for awhile whether he could win it the second time he tried. Neither of them just bought their way onto the November ballot, they had to first win popular support in office in order to get on that presidential ballot.

Now we have billionaire "major donors" who in some cases underwrite political campaigns in excess of 100 million dollars. It's just a business budget line to a multi billionaire, that investment often pays them back many times over in future "profits". Over the past few years there has been more and more talk about this or that billionaire potentially eliminating the middle man, and just buying the best political talent money can buy to launch their own shot at the Presidency. No need to win any other office first before going for the golden ring.

This is relatively new in American politics. We had Perot, and then we had Trump. Now we also have the experience of a Trump presidency. In the cold light of that "day" perhaps more people will start seeing past their People magazine semi-worship of a bigger than life persona, fueled by the awe felt toward those who accumulate personal fortunes sufficient to fund public education for a year or more in some states, money that never seems to make it back into funding the common good.

[volstork]

11. "We are in danger of allowing vast wealth to create a new political aristocracy in America"

Too late, it's already happened. We need to turn it around, though...

[moondust]

13. More bartenders, please.

People not born into wealth and privilege who can relate to the struggles of average Americans.

[Demsrule86]

14. People do not realize Starbucks is not a good employer...they don't have full time employees.

I believe managers are full time only. They pay less than Walmart and no employee working part time can afford their health insurance. Most of them are on Medicaid expansion. They do give breaks and free food.

[LTG]

38. Things about Schultz that might get him votes

I’ve known a number of Starbucks baristas very well. Several were full-time and others part-time. Many of the part-time I’ve known simply can’t work full-time (school etc). They do also have employees who want and need full-time and can’t get it. In today’s world that’s unfortunately true of many businesses. I have also known several people who have been badly and unfairly treated by the company.

They do offer full benefits to anyone working at least 20 hours per week. This includes paid sick leave, paid maternity/paternity leave and free tuition at Arizona State Universities online program.

They typically pay above minimum wage (pay is adjusted according to local cost of living) and the baristas split the tips, pro-rated by hours, on top of that, which is not typical in the food service industry. Tips, at least around here, can add at least 1 or 2 dollars per hour (also depending upon locale)

Over all they have often been pretty highly rated as an employer, at least in regards to wages and benefits.

The company also tries to source, as much as possible from smaller growers who have ethically and environmentally sound practices.

Schultz grew up in poverty, living in New York City Housing Authority housing. He was first in his family to go to college. Unlike Trump he really is a self-made billionaire.

Schulz himself has received a number of awards for his philanthropy, social justice and equality. They include awards for his work against AIDS, Ethics in Business, and the first Responsible Capitalism award. He also received the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund’s National Equal Justice Award.

One final anecdote, back in the 90’s my wife was a nurse manager at a rehabilitation facility. They had a younger patient who had a bad accident and would be the a couple of months. One day a man came to visit with him.

Later my wife went by to say hi to him and he was setting up a new laptop. He said the man dropped it off for him to surf and game on to give him something to do and prevent some boredom. She asked who the man was and was told by the patient that he had worked in one of his stores for several years and his name was Howard Schultz. Might have been a one-off event, but considerate none the less.

All in all a billionaire that could appeal to more voters than we anticipate. Sorry for the long bio, but wanted to provide info with which many surrogates will blanket the press and they’ll eat it up.

To be clear, I find him well above average, for a billionaire. I wouldn’t ever vote for him in the coming election. I do not, and have never, worked for Starbucks or any company related to Starbucks.

Being a life long Seattle area resident the local press has covered him often over the years, and after my wife’s experience with him I’ve kept track of the articles and followed him loosely over the years. That said, I did research some specifics online, including in Wikipedia to freshen and reinforce my memory.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. They recently agreed to pay for gender-affirming care for Transgender people

which is a great thing. But that doesn't necessarily make it the best employer ever- or Schultz an acceptable candidate.

[LTG]

44. Agreed, not the greatest employer ever, but

each item might individually sway a single issue or fence sitting voter.

The totality might be enough to sway a few Democrats/ Independents that feel the Democratic Party has moved too left/progressive for them.

There will always be voters who feel voting their own principles is more important than a potentially disastrous result. They believe that surely “this” vote won’t affect the results, but could be a message to the party.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

45. +1

[Demsrule86]

68. If you vote for this guy who like Jill Stein won't win, you are voting for Trump.

Schultz wants Trump to win in my opinion and that makes him a horror.

[Demsrule86]

67. Since they rig the system to dole out very little insurance...not much chance that will happen.

Also, every Trans person I know who applies ( five or six) was not hired. My daughter runs a unity group...so all is not what it appears to be.

[Demsrule86]

66. That is completely untrue...they deliberately keep workers part time so as not to allow them to

get the insurance they claim to provide but never do...oh he has a good shtick but really wants your social security so he can keep his billions...don't talk to me about their philanthropy ...they need to pay fucking taxes. The middle class and the poor got a tax hike with the Trump Tax Debacle...buy guy like him...well they got so much more money. He is just protecting his billions by making sure Trump wins. I consider him as greedy as the rest...he just has better PR to hide the truth. Walmart and Home Depot pay better so does Target. And the idea that there are college kids working their taking advantage of the great pay and what have you is untrue. I know people who work there. Many are just young people who can't find jobs in their field or who didn't go to college who would love to work full time and have insurance...but they hire too many folks deliberately to keep the hours down and whatever Starbucks was in the 90's it is now a shit company to work for.

https://www.foodandwine.com/news/starbucks-baristas-reveal-reasons-they-hate-working-there

[LTG]

70. Unfortunately PR is all many voters will see or to which they will bother pay attention

Experiences and anecdotes will vary from area to area and store to store. I do not doubt your comments, nor that they are probably true on a wider national basis.

My own friendships and experience is in upscale stores in primarily upper middle class areas. Seldom a good place to look for a “typical” company wide representation. This is probably even more true in an area/store where a Starbucks corporate executive is likely one of your regulars.

My post was intended to present readily available information, whether accurate or not, that will be touted by a campaign, surrogates, press and PR people. That, and his being a “lifelong” Democrat, might look appealing to lower information center left, center and center right voters who are uncomfortable with the movement further left and right of the two major parties.

I think he may take more from both parties,and the independents, than either party believes. IIRC, Ross Perot got about 19% of the vote as a third party candidate. He might look just liberal enough, but not too liberal, for those who walk in either the right or left lane, but still between the lines of the main highway.

[hunter]

15. If it were up to me I'd tax billionaires out of existence.

Bill Gates would live in the big house on the corner, and the guy who cleans the floors of his corporate offices would live down the street.

Their children would go to the same schools, they might see the same doctor or dentist, and they'd occasionally stop and chat in chance encounters at the grocery store.

I figure if there's a minimum wage there ought to be maximums as well, probably a multiple less than 16.

If the minimum wage is $10 an hour, the maximum wage would be less than $160 an hour, all achieved by steeply progressive taxes.

A similar formula would apply to wealth, though possibly with a larger multiple.

[OMGWTF]

16. America prospered the most in the 50s and 60s when the marginal tax rates were highest

[hunter]

21. Yep.

It encouraged successful people to reinvest their money in research and businesses that raised the standard of living for everyone.

Too much of our nation's wealth today is dead; hoarded by sociopaths, "invested" in schemes that don't make the world a better place for anyone, not even themselves. Just look at Trump. Inheriting that wealth did not make him a better person.

[lame54]

17. A Starbucks boycott would change his mind...

Plenty of other places to get overpriced coffee

[treestar]

18. Too bad it takes so much money to win

It lets this happen. And it makes fundraising so important.

[certainot]

19. this is part of the problem of dems ignoring rw radio

there's a lot of 'independents' and social 'liberals' and even cons blaming dem reps and the party for being 'spineless' and ineffective because they have no fucking clue 1500 radio stations have been kicking their ass for 30 years.

[zaj]

23. Agree and disagree...

I think it makes a meaningful difference for any candidate for President to have done real work in Civic leadership that brings you close to the impact of your policies. Bloomberg being Mayor for 3 terms is a meaningful difference with anyone like Trump.

We have lots of good choices, so there is no need to lean on a billionaire. And it will always be better to have someone like Obama.

[Tom Rinaldo]

37. See post #4 above. I agree it's a meaningful difference. n/t

[keithbvadu2]

24. Billionaire says: T-r-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-s-t me...

Billionaire says: T-r-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-u-s-t me...

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

25. I'd dispute that Schultz is a good billionaire

Ask any Seattle Supersonics fan.

[shanti]

26. No more businessmen/women!

This country, as we've seen, cannot be run as a business. It's much too complex for that. I'm ok with attorneys though, as the U.S. is a nation of laws.

[violetpastille]

27. Yep. n/t

[yaesu]

28. They always claim to be fiscally conservative which should be a big, red flag. nt

[BamaRefugee]

29. Pretty sure it would be unConstitutional to prevent ANY qualified citizen for running for President.

What next? No lawyers? Then no politician re-elected more than once? There's a long list of categories that MILLIONS of Americans would support black listing, many of them to the disadvantage of Democrats.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. I addressed that in post #8 n/t

[Locutusofborg]

30. Ten Wealthiest Presidents by estimated net worth

2016 Dollars
1) Donald Trump: $3.7 billiom
2) George Washington: $580 million
3) Thomas Jefferson: $234 million
4) Theodore Roosevelt: $138 million
5) Andrew Jackson: $131 million
6) James Madison: $112 million
7) Lyndon Johnson: $108 million
8) Herbert Hoover: $82 million
9) Bill Clinton: $75 million
10) Franklin Roosevelt: $66 million
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_net_worth

[Tom Rinaldo]

35. A couple of observations

Even after adjusting for inflation, there's only one billionaire in the bunch. And thirty percent of the others all came from the same brief historical period; they were all "founding fathers" as they say. Great as they may well have been they ratified a Constitution that continued slavery, and they only allowed male landowners to actually vote. And if this list has Bill Clinton at 75 million, then it measures these men by the wealth that they managed to accumulate over time, because Bill Clinton had nowhere near that type of wealth when he first ran for President. That's probably true of some others on that list also.

[Bradshaw3]

31. Yes, especially billionaires whose "contribution" to our country

is selling overpriced, fat and sugar filled beverages to yuppies. Hopefully someday we'll stop hero worshipping (talking to you 60 Minutes) rich people whose main claim to fame is getting rich through bullshit like he did.

[MBS]

32. My mood as well.

Especially billionaire businessmen with zero political experience, such as Shultz.
We're in big trouble, and we can't afford any more amateurs.

[Vinca]

33. Agreed. They need to find another hobby.

[ZeroSomeBrains]

43. K&R

Your absolutely right Tom. I don't want to hear how a billionaire like Bloomberg or any other one is going to win the White House. If I was really a billionaire philanthropist then I would be doing everything I can to elect a Democratic president and get the US Senate to go back to the Dems. Or help out the Americans living in Puerto Rico. Don't make it about yourself and run. Do something good with that money.

[dalton99a]

46. And anyone who says "Both parties" is a willfully ignorant, malicious, dishonest asshole.

[Initech]

49. We could repeal Citizens United and start taxing and regulating large corporations again.

But we don't have time for rational solutions!

[still_one]

51. FDR would have been a billionaire by today's standards

[violetpastille]

52. FDR would have been racist by today's standards.

FDR was a great president in his own time.

We are in a completely different time, with different requirements for a President.

[still_one]

53. You have just eliminated those in the Joseph P. Kennedy family.

[violetpastille]

54. I would have voted for JFK in 1960 in the GE

If I had been alive and voting.

But I probably would have been hoping for Stevenson up until that point. ngl.

[still_one]

57. of course, but my point is we need to be careful with sweeping generalizations that the OP is making

You don't have don't go after Schultz's wealth to find reasons NOT to vote for him.

[violetpastille]

60. You're absolutely correct about that.

[oberliner]

55. How about millionaires?

[jalan48]

58. 1 billion equals 1000 millions

[oberliner]

62. Still - the vast majority of Americans are not millionaires

[Yavin4]

59. Billionaires equal Stolen wages from their employees

That's where the billions come from. Sub-standard wages paid to employees. It's the employees that actually create the wealth. I've been in Starbucks a thousand times, and I've never seen Schultz behind the counter. I do see folks living paycheck to paycheck. These folks should be paid a higher wage based on the performance of the company.

No one should live in poverty working for a billionaire.

[jalan48]

61. Plutocracy.

plu·toc·ra·cy

/plo͞oˈtäkrəsē

noun

government by the wealthy.

a country or society governed by the wealthy.

an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.

[bdamomma]

64. Billionaires

are only for themselves, haven't we already learned that.

We need someone who doesn't have a fucking silver spoon in their mouth.

[struggle4progress]

69. "I've spent my life learning how to make myself rich! Now you should make me President

so I can really apply what I've learned!"

[aidbo]

71. I like what AOC (or maybe one of her aides?) said: 'Every billionaire is a policy failure.'