Apply this reasoning to the charter school debate. I would argue that the donors had a certain kind of competance: they had great timing, they were successful in a certain endevor (software, etc), they were on the whole diligent. But that definately doesn't mean they have cometance in improving education policy...in fact what they learned in making their millions would tend to make the WORSE at improving schools than your average joe.

Goldy, there's a difference between pissing away your shareholder's money and pissing away your own.

@3 got it.
In fact, pissing away your shareholder's money by spending it to advance your friends and business associates is a great way to get them to do the same for you.
Which results in you and them all getting more money.

The thing is- if it's true that spending all that money doesn't impact elections so much, then why should I care if billionaires continue to do it?

Well Joe Glibmoron settled this debate already. There's a strong correlation between wealth and being good at making money, but that doesn't mean you make money in good ways or do good for any other living being.

Markos forgets that Brown spent $20 million of his own to defeat big money, half what was spent to defeat him but 10 times more than the average amount spent on a senate campaign, which implies candidates more and more beholden to entities/individuals with big pockets and less and less beholden to the public they are supposed to serve.

@1 and @3 got it right, Goldy. "Incompetent" is not the same as "greedy." Their objective was not to run a company, but to make as much for themselves as they could. They're actually very competent at that...

or D), they will blame Rove and give their money to the next charlatan who comes along. Because the alternative is believing there's something that money can't buy.