Money in Politics: A Path Forward?

A guest essay by R. Stuart Baker

(Note to Readers: You can listen to this post in the Substack app on an iPhone or Android by opening the post and tapping the play button at the top right. The app is available for free at Apple’s App Store and at Google Play.

Trying to remove money from politics in 2026 is like trying to remove sugar from cookies that have already been baked. While it may seem unlikely, if enough people support reforms to mitigate money’s effects on our politics, then perhaps our policymakers might give serious consideration. It would be a much-needed improvement over the status quo. As it stands, we have no way of knowing which members of the House and Senate have been bought and by whom. Since no honorable member of the legislative branch wants to raise their hand to admit that donors’ contributions have influenced their actions, and none of them likely want to get off the gravy train they’re riding, a different approach is needed to shed light on the money-in-politics problem.

Let’s do some math

According to the US Dept. of Health and Human Services in 2024, the dollar value assigned to a human life was $13,100,000.00 (13.1 million dollars). As of July 1, 2026, the total market capitalization of the US stock market is $75,272,047,100,000.00. (75,282,047.1 million dollars). It’s a bit of a reach, and, since we’re discussing humans, also a touch crass and demeaning, but dividing those two numbers yields:

5,746,721 people worth of dollars within the US stock market.¹

Take Minnesota (which has been in the news a lot this year, and for many of the wrong reasons), which has a 2026 population of 5,793,151, making it the 22^nd most populous state in the US. You might say the worth of the population of the Land of 10,000 Lakes in people-dollars equates to the entire amount of people-dollars in the US stock market- an illustration, in my opinion, of the unequal distribution of wealth in our society. And, in America, the power of concentrated wealth translates into directly into political power.

We have the best government that money can buy.- Mark Twain

Now consider the House of Representatives, the People’s House, the chamber of Congress in which each state's representation is based on its population. Minnesota, our example, has 8 Representatives. California, the most populated state, has 52. The total number of House members was fixed at 435 by the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929. ² My suggestion that the Act be amended and the number of House members be increased- for example, to 443. The 8 additional representatives would work without a government salary and without benefits.³ Instead, they would be paid for by the businesses and other interests they represent. They would be a de facto Permanent House Committee of Special Interests. Instead of lobbying the other 435 members, special interest groups would have their policy demands advocated for by the Committee. It would be the Committee’s job to try to move legislation favorable to their patrons through the House just as any other member would. They would vote on bills, speak on the floor, and try to build consensus for their bills. In general, they would act as the other members, but their constituency would be special interests.

This would require, of course, a thorough reworking of campaign finance law to prevent special interests from funneling funds and favors to members of Congress. The method might be tax-funded campaign funds for all candidates, so that elections are not determined by the Elon Musks of the oligarch class, or dark-money Super-PACs. The goal is transparency so that we know our popularly-elected legislators are free to focus on the people's issues. It would be refreshing to know that, when someone speaks on the House floor, if they are making the case for a for the voters who elected them or for the donors who pay them. I’d rather have a bought-and-paid-for 1.473% of the entire legislative branch than an unknown percentage of the current system.

Just a thought, from the cheap seat I’m in.

R. Stuart Baker

ThoughtsFromTheCheapSeats is an expression of my thoughts and opinions on a range of subjects. The purpose is to promote a healthy exchange of ideas. Archived newsletters can be found at 1hundredsixty8.substack.com./archive

You can support my efforts here by becoming a paying subscriber for $5.00 per month. An annual subscription is $50.00 for 12 months.

If you don’t wish to become a regular subscriber, consider contributing occasionally by leaving a tip. Click below:

If you want to submit a piece for 168, please email me at nicrosato2@gmail.com.

And please remember to click the Like button.

1. I’m not sure basing people-dollars on the valuation of the US stock market is fair, as the US stock market’s shareholders aren’t all the ultra-wealthy who have influenced the current representatives, but I needed a large dollar value to base the calculation on

2. The 435 members are reapportioned among the states after a national census, which occurs every 10 years. Since state populations change, it is normal for some states to lose or gain Representation every 10 years.

3. One idea would be to elect these At-Large Representatives iny a nationwide, popular election. The same slate of candidates would stand for for election in each state, and, per our example, the top 8 vot-getters would serve.