Conceptual illustration of wealth, community and institutional access, with Chris Manzano’s approved illustrated portrait. The scales are a metaphor, not evidence of a particular case or transaction.

When Wealth Becomes Power Over the Rules

16 hours ago

6 min read

OPINION / COMMENTARY | Power & Accountability Thursdays — Episode 1

By Chris Manzano | Prepared and researched October 19, 2026 | Sources refreshed October 29, 2026

I’m not against people becoming wealthy. I’m concerned about what happens when wealth becomes so concentrated that it changes how accountability works.

Can a country become richer while ordinary people become less able to challenge the people with the most money? Can we celebrate economic success while overlooking who can afford to defend a right, demand an explanation or keep an argument alive?

Those are the questions behind this Thursday series. My concern is not success itself. It is the possibility that financial advantage becomes power over the institutions that are supposed to protect everyone.

Who can afford to keep going?

Imagine two people with equally plausible positions in a civil dispute. One can pay lawyers for years. The other must choose between the next legal bill and ordinary living expenses. This is a hypothetical, not an account of a particular case.

The difference does not establish who is right. It creates another question: Does the eventual outcome reflect the merits, or does it partly reflect who could afford to remain in the room?

Sometimes a settlement is sensible for everyone. Sometimes an appeal corrects a serious error. Neither settling nor appealing automatically proves misconduct. But I worry about a system in which the practical ability to pursue justice depends too heavily on the ability to absorb delay.

An equal right should mean more than permission to enter a contest you cannot realistically sustain.

The justice gap is not hypothetical

The Legal Services Corporation’s 2022 Justice Gap report found that low-income Americans received no or inadequate legal help for 92% of civil legal problems that substantially affected them. Housing, health care and consumer issues were among the common problem areas. These are historical national findings about a defined population—not a claim that 92% of Americans lose their cases. LSC research.

That study does not prove that wealthy litigants caused the shortfall. It does establish why access to legal help belongs in a discussion about whether rights are usable. LSC research.

For a person facing a housing dispute, the question is not only what a lease or statute says. It is whether they can understand their position and obtain a fair hearing. I would want that protection to be real for a tenant and for a small property owner. Having fewer resources does not automatically make either side correct.

Trump is an example—but the record matters

Donald Trump was the example that brought this concern to mind for me. But I don’t want to turn every legal dispute involving him into the same accusation. A specific record is more useful than a sweeping claim.

In its November 26, 2025 decision in Trump v. Clinton, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed sanctions that included $937,989.39 in fees and costs imposed jointly and severally on Trump, attorney Alina Habba and her firm. The underlying sanctions addressed bad-faith litigation conduct. Court opinion.

The same court declined additional appellate sanctions because the appeal included valid arguments about jurisdiction. That matters: a finding of misconduct in the underlying litigation did not make every argument on appeal frivolous. Court opinion.

This is evidence of a specific abuse and of courts responding to it. It is not proof that personal wealth caused each delay or that the legal system could do nothing. My broader question remains whether our institutions can respond effectively without requiring everyone else to survive a prolonged financial contest.

As of October 29, 2026, the Supreme Court docket for Trump v. Clinton, No. 26-518, records an October 27 request for a response due November 27. No Supreme Court disposition appears on that docket at this check. A response request is not a ruling on the merits, and the sanctions decision does not establish whether the award has been paid.

Presidential authority is also different from personal wealth. The Supreme Court’s July 2024 ruling in Trump v. United States recognized absolute criminal immunity for core constitutional powers, at least presumptive immunity for other official acts, and no presidential immunity for unofficial acts. That distinction concerns the office and the conduct—not the size of a personal fortune. Supreme Court opinion.

When examining concentrated power, I want us to identify which kind of power we mean.

Influence can begin before a decision is made

Access to policymakers is another part of the picture. In a randomized experiment involving 191 congressional offices, researchers Joshua Kalla and David Broockman varied whether offices were told that prospective meeting attendees were campaign donors. When that status was disclosed, senior policymakers made themselves available between three and four times more often. Original study.

Published online in 2015 and in a 2016 journal issue, the study involved one political organization and offices of one party. It tested disclosure of donor status, not the effects of randomly handing politicians money. Most importantly, it measured access—not purchased votes or bribery. Original study.

I think that narrower finding is important enough. Accountability is not only about punishing wrongdoing after a decision. It is also about whose concerns receive serious attention before the decision is made.

This is bigger than the deficit

My economic commentaries ask whether we pay too much attention to balancing the federal budget and too little to inflation, real resources and public benefit. This series adds another question: Who has the practical power to shape those choices?

In his explanation of Modern Monetary Theory, economist L. Randall Wray discusses the distribution of income and wealth and the shaping of incentives alongside taxes’ currency and demand-management roles. That is an account from an MMT proponent, not a statement of universal agreement or an endorsement of every possible tax. Wray’s explanation.

My next step is a democratic argument, not an accounting identity. Even with low inflation, I would still be concerned if concentrated economic power made public institutions less responsive or accountability less equal.

That does not establish a magic wealth limit. Nor does the concern depend on whether a country issues its own currency. A monetary framework cannot, by itself, tell us how much influence is fair or how to prevent its abuse. Those decisions require evidence, law and democratic judgment.

The answer cannot be less due process

There is a serious objection to my argument: efforts to restrain private power can concentrate more power in government. Officials could use vague accusations of “too much influence” against critics or people they dislike. Wealth can also support independent journalism, public-interest litigation and challenges to government. Those possibilities deserve protection, not dismissal.

I do not want fewer rights for someone because they are rich, politically unpopular or accused of wrongdoing. I want meaningful access to those rights for everyone else, too.

That means preserving legitimate appeals while addressing demonstrated abuse. It means examining public as well as private power. A reform should not be judged by whether it hurts a disliked person; it should be judged by whether it makes fair accountability more dependable.

What I would ask of a better system

First, can people obtain usable help? I would examine legal assistance, accessible procedures and court capacity together. More funding should come with measures of whether people actually receive help and whether avoidable delays decline—not quotas for which side should win.

Second, are consequences effective and fair? Rules against abusive litigation should distinguish a difficult argument from a dishonest or harassing one. I would want transparent reasoning and review, not an assumption that every lengthy case is an abuse.

Third, can the public see how influence operates? I would evaluate clearer disclosure of financial relationships and conflicts, alongside privacy and lawful participation. Where tax or competition policy is proposed to reduce concentrated power, its costs, enforceability and unintended consequences deserve the same scrutiny as its goals.

These are standards I want to investigate in this series, not promises that one policy will fix everything.

Money alone is not the answer. Courts and legal assistance need resources, but resources need accountable institutions. The goal should not be merely a larger economy. It should be a society in which success can coexist with rights that people can actually use.

A fortune should not become a practical exemption from accountability. And a modest bank balance should not make the promise of equal justice feel out of reach.

Next in Power & Accountability Thursdays: When does delay stop protecting a fair process and start becoming the outcome?

Join the conversation

What would make equal accountability more real: better access to legal help, faster fair procedures or clearer disclosure of influence? Share your perspective with Chris at Chris@ChrisManzano.com or 305-999-5664.

Personal opinion and general civic and economic education, not legal, tax, investment or mortgage advice. The opening dispute is hypothetical. Research and court decisions are identified by date and are not a complete review of later proceedings. Sources rechecked October 29, 2026.