So, Occluded Sun's first shot at this goal ("let the insanely wealthy buy all the politicians they want!") was a weird false dichotomy in which the only choices were to allow the unlimited influence of wealth or block all influence of anything ever. That's insane and stupid, but it was attempt #1.
Attempt #2 is:
Occluded Sun wrote:That's even without considering the practical implications of the reality that many of the people proposing these sorts of restrictions are truly doing it because they think it will benefit their favorite causes, not to mention the obvious truth that people will find or create loopholes in the restrictions and keep them relatively inaccessible, meaning that those without the pull to access and exploit those loopholes will be even more deprived of power than before.
To paraphrase: "There exists someone who will benefit from the implementation of fairer elections, and that's evil! Also if you try to make elections fairer, it will blow up in your face somehow and the little people will get fucked even harder than if you had no regulations at all." Now, the second of those is literally just substanceless fearmongering. Seriously. "Hey, that thing you're trying to do? Be scared of it! Because reasons!" There's nothing there.
But the first of those tells you everything you need to know about Occluded Sun: yes, he is correct that a certain group benefits from the implementation of fair elections. That group is known as the people of the United States, who are empowered by fair elections to elect their own representatives and hold their government accountable for its failures and fuck-ups.
That is the notion that has Occluded Sun so incensed that he would try to paint it as part of some sinister agenda. Of course, the reality is that the
absence of fair elections benefits
Occluded Sun's pet causes, and the only sinister agenda here is the one he represents - the obstruction of fair elections on behalf of plutocratic interests.
It's kind of like the Republican disenfranchisement of African Americans. It's obviously evil, but the internal perspective of the Democratic movement to block that disenfranchisement is that it's equally bad - because after all, Democrats benefit disproportionately from black voters, so it's just part of their "sinister agenda to win elections." Now, there's a lot wrong with that, but the biggest issue is: there is nothing sinister about winning elections because you have a mandate from the people! That is how elections are supposed to work, and that is in fact the only non-sinister way to win elections. If you find yourself winning an election
in spite of the will of the people,
you're the bad guy! Full stop.