Which is sad, but should remind some people it was a similar situation regarding the French Revolution. The less you have, the less you have to lose.

There's also the question of disposable income. Top X% have more wealth and income than us, and that excess is basically all disposable. Most of the income and "wealth" of the bottom of the economic ladder is tied up in survival needs, so it's even less of a possibility than at first glance.

Not about the SCOTUS, but there was a report a while back showing that many senators votes were purchased for only a few grand… we could probably swing that.

But the bribe amounts have very little to do with how unfathomably rich the "donors" are! If you look at all those bribes, the amounts are still within the realm of what the 99% could put together.

But I don't even think it would cost the 99% that much, because it would force the 1% to up their game (in other words, there'd be bribe inflation) until the 99% can't follow suit, which means the 99% wouldn't even need to pay, in the end. But the higher price would make some bribers think twice, which might lead to less bribery happening.

We dont need our buying power to match the 1%. We need the density of our group to outmatch whoever happens to be in the Supreme Court Building at the time.

But the he wouldn't be a mullah :(