People often make the argument that money is “neutral” – it has no morality. Money doesn’t have political power; money only lets you buy goods/services. It’s true that money mainly lets you buy goods/services. However, importantly, one of those things that money lets you buy is other peoples’ time. In the U.S., we have a democracy for electing leaders – people vote on who they want to put in office and, more or less, those people get into office. A problem is that money allows a person to have others enact their desires. If someone has $1,000,000,000, then they can afford to tell ~33,000 people making $30,000 a year what to do for 8 hours a day, over a year. That’s 660 people in every state taking actions, every day, to serve a single person’s interests. The person with money is “buying the good/service of another person’s labor”. In exchange, the person with money gets to have their wishes carried out, with little/no questioning from the people carrying out the work. If the workers disagree significantly with the work, they’re fired or work elsewhere.
How can a society consider money to be orthogonal to politics when large sums of money allow the wealthy to control how classes of people spend large portions of their lives? A better way to say it might be: If I gave one person in the world the ability to order around 100,000 people [for example] for a year and enact their will, including using those people to change laws for the person with money’s benefit, how is such a system not directly contradicting democracy? People have democracy at polls, but not at work, and thus you see journalists/workers enacting the will of the wealthy at work, which directly influences decision-making at the polls.
Money equals (at least in some cases) time spent by workers. Money equals the power to tell people what to do for a period of time, and have your will enacted in the world. Ergo, money is power, and it is not neutral.