In a Democracy, being a Billionaire does not automatically qualify anyone to 'Higher Office'.

In a Democracy, being a Billionaire does not automatically qualify anyone to 'Higher Office'. In all probability, the status of His, Her, Estate would have to be a consideration in any economic decisions, resolutions or Laws effecting or connected to his, her, Economic status. Any Billionaire is already in a position to contribute more than anyone else towards the improvement, or betterment, of the 'Lower Classes' or the Homeless. But, most are not that 'charitable'. Of course, its unfair to compell such 'generosity' on someone who is a Billionaire. 'Competition' is alive and well in a 'Democracy'. Its actually the Motivating force in a 'Social' that is 'Free and Equal'. But, is it 'Free and Equal'? Can there be 'competition' between the 'Rich' and the 'Poor'; the 'Corporate Persons' and the 'Real Persons'; 'Rich Politicians' at the Top and the 'Poor People' at the 'Bottom'. Is the Top really 'Governing' or is it 'causing imbalances' in the 'Economy'; imbalances that only 'widens' the division between Rich and Poor. Politics seems to have reduced itself to a struggle between the 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'; and the 'Political Values' of a 'Democracy' have been 'Transformed' into 'Squables at the Top' between the 'Two Parties', each 'Political Party' seeking advantage for 'itself' within the 'Economy', instead of the 'Social'. The 'Social' continues with a 'complete severance' between the 'Haves' and the 'Have-Nots'. The Top continues its 'Plutocratic' 'implementation' and 'modification' of 'Economic Principles'; Principles that transforms a Democracy into a Plutocracy.