https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-12-08/oklahoma-s-future-rests-in-the-hands-of-two-very-different-oil-billionaires?fbclid=IwAR27Rp4_DcVA23uFZ5IXFNUYxMVY LCk_WVqd4dO4Q-TKV3oUNHx1RAGTzLg

George Kaiser, a 76-year-old Oklahoma banker and oilman giving away almost his entire $10.5 billion fortune, wants higher taxes on his own industry. He’s bankrolling trendy neighborhoods in Tulsa, an early-childhood education program and a movement toward criminal-justice reform. Kaiser says his priority is to wean the state’s economy from “cyclical, commodity-based industry.”

Harold Hamm, founder of Oklahoma City oil-and-gas giant Continental Resources Inc., has fought to keep things as they are: lean budgets, lax environmental regulations and low fossil-fuel levies. With a net worth of $13.8 billion according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, he funds the state’s most conservative politicians while arguing for higher taxes on wind turbines sprouting on the rolling hills. Hamm, 72, has promised to donate most of his money to “causes that will enable people with ambition and tenacity to achieve their goals.” So far that’s included millions for research on what he calls the “American energy renaissance”—a doubling of oil production since 2011.

Because OKC sucks, that's why! Jkjk! I really wish this wasn't an OKC vs. Tulsa issue. This is a Kaiser vs. Hamm issue. I know plenty of well to do people in OKC who love to donate time, money, services, etc. to people in need, and to causes that affect a larger number of people. But I get it, OKC is seen as selfish in this article.

The issue is how both men use their wealth and influence to affect their respective communities.

The issue is how both men use their wealth and influence to affect their respective communities.
And the difference is night and day.

The interesting difference is that one man is the child of sharecroppers and started out pumping gas and eventually built his empire and fortune and one inherited the family oil business and leveraged that into an empire. Wonder how that influences their worldview and actions.

The interesting difference is that one man is the child of sharecroppers and started out pumping gas and eventually built his empire and fortune and one inherited the family oil business and leveraged that into an empire. Wonder how that influences their worldview and actions.

One sees the benefit of society succeeding (a rising tide lifts all boats) while one sees the benefit of only himself succeeding. Pretty stark contrast between the two.

One sees the benefit of society succeeding (a rising tide lifts all boats) while one sees the benefit of only himself succeeding. Pretty stark contrast between the two.

Way to oversimplify, and not really the observation I was making.

George Kaiser certainly views the world through his wealth considering the things he donates to (e.g., parks, arts, misguided Teach for America program...) , but also through the lens of his parents fleeing Nazi persecution during the Holocaust (e.g., seeks unity in the community). There's a lot of people who came from poverty who dedicated their life to the people in the community. Harold Hamm shows up to the capital personally to fight teacher payraises. It's certainly interesting to think how each community would be different if the two men traded places.

Way to oversimplify, and not really the observation I was making.

Sheesh,makes it sound like good vs evil.

The issue is how both men use their wealth and influence to affect their respective communities.

And my issue with the issue is that it is not an OKC vs. Tulsa thing. Should say Hamm vs. Kaiser. We know OKC doesn't have the philanthropical wizard than Tulsa does. But it isn't OKC's fault.

Nobody is saying it's OKC's fault but since you brought it up...

Leadership in OKC has abetted Hamm a great deal.

Millions in job incentives, sold him the Santa Fe Garage in a sweetheart deal, and allowed his influence on lots of other issues.


Kaiser has donated billions to things that directly benefit Tulsa and Hamm had taken millions from the state and city, ironically while pouring tons of money into right-wing causes under the guise of smaller government and lower taxes.

If Kaiser ever gets done with his generosity toward Tulsa, he can start on OKC.

If Kaiser ever gets done with his generosity toward Tulsa, he can start on OKC.

He already did: OKC Thunder. ;)

Does someone have an obligation to focus their philanthropy at the city level? Personally, I'm a pro local guy, but if someone chooses to focus more on diabetes research or what have you, rather than arts and parks, more power to them.

It's certainly interesting to think how each community would be different if the two men traded places.

In a way George Kaiser's generosity lets the city of Tulsa off the hook on certain things. Take Gathering Place, if Kaiser hadn't donated that the city certainly wouldn't have done it. Same for Guthrie Green, the Bob Dylan Archives, streetscape work in the Arts District, new river trails, expanding Turkey Mountain Urban Wilderness area, etc. If anything by Kaiser donating these things that should free up the city to do other large and ambitious projects, the same ones that OKC has to fund themselves. Transit for instance could be something the city could be doing more to promote but there are no current plans for a streetcar or commuter rail like what OKC is doing.

Does someone have an obligation to focus their philanthropy at the city level? Personally, I'm a pro local guy, but if someone chooses to focus more on diabetes research or what have you, rather than arts and parks, more power to them.

I’m not discounting his contributions, I used to be a patient at the Hamm Diabetes Center. However he donated to OU for that because he has it too, so it does benefit him personally by having more research into diabetes.

Hamm and Kaiser are both signatories of the famous "Giving Pledge" where billionaires promise to donate half of their wealth within their lifetimes (or in their wills) to charitable causes. I have a ton of respect for both of these people.

George Kaiser certainly views the world through his wealth considering the things he donates to (e.g., parks, arts, misguided Teach for America program...) , but also through the lens of his parents fleeing Nazi persecution during the Holocaust (e.g., seeks unity in the community). There's a lot of people who came from poverty who dedicated their life to the people in the community. Harold Hamm shows up to the capital personally to fight teacher payraises. It's certainly interesting to think how each community would be different if the two men traded places.

That’s a big oversimplification. Hamm wasn’t fighting teacher pay raises, he was fighting the methods used to generate the revenue needed for them.

That’s a big oversimplification. Hamm wasn’t fighting teacher pay raises, he was fighting the methods used to generate the revenue needed for them.
In effect, wasn't that fighting them?

In effect, wasn't that fighting them?

If you want to see it that way, sure. Though it makes it sound like he’s an old a**hole hell bent on keeping teacher salaries low. Had the only recommended source of revenue for their raises not been a gross production tax increase, I highly doubt he would’ve cared.

That’s a big oversimplification. Hamm wasn’t fighting teacher pay raises, he was fighting the methods used to generate the revenue needed for them.

He certainly wasn't out there advocating for funding solutions. I'm sorry, but he was opposing them. Legislative solutions are often frought with compromises and imprefections, but that was a pretty easy one to get right in my opinion. He took his stand and opposed teacher pay raises during a crisis.

Had the only recommended source of revenue for their raises not been a gross production tax increase, I highly doubt he would’ve cared.

I agree. I don't think he cares about issues like teacher salaries that he sees outside his personal and business interests (which I think is naive because perceptions of education quality have a huge effect on all aspects of society, incuding local oil and gas companies). Whereas, even though I disagree with some of Kaiser's education initatives (e.g., Teach for America), he actually is involved in the community to find ways forward. Hamm gets in the way if it doesn't benefit him or his company, including during a crisis.

Ah... doesn’t OKC miss Aubrey now? We haven’t had another Uber wealthy citizen step up yet. Tulsa wealthy families have historically been more civic minded in their philanthropy. OKC has Funk and Hamm now. Nuff said.

Ah... doesn’t OKC miss Aubrey now? We haven’t had another Uber wealthy citizen step up yet. Tulsa wealthy families have historically been more civic minded in their philanthropy. OKC has Funk and Hamm now. Nuff said.

One thing about Aubrey... Yes, he was generous but the huge percentage of what he gave was not his funds but Chesapeake's.

When he was forced out at CHK all that giving pretty much dried up, the most notable example being the Boathouse Row initiatives. They got into big financial trouble when he was out at CHK and the money immediately stopped flowing, long before he died.

George Kaiser certainly views the world through his wealth considering the things he donates to (e.g., parks, arts, misguided Teach for America program...) , but also through the lens of his parents fleeing Nazi persecution during the Holocaust (e.g., seeks unity in the community). There's a lot of people who came from poverty who dedicated their life to the people in the community. Harold Hamm shows up to the capital personally to fight teacher payraises. It's certainly interesting to think how each community would be different if the two men traded places.

Kissinger came from a family similar to Kaiser's...

Tulsa is indeed blessed to be the benefactor of the wealth and generosity of George Kaiser.

Let's not forget, Harold Hamm:

His younger wife took him to the cleaners - Harold Hamm's $975 Million Divorce Check: First Rejected, Then Cashed, Now Taxed: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/01/10/harold-hamms-975-million-divorce-check-first-rejected-then-cashed-now-taxed-but-when/#38a65e4077d9

Kaiser was the largest shareholder in Solyndra.
https://newsok.com/article/3621823/oklahomas-george-kaiser-linked-to-white-house-solyndra

Seems that OKC's billionaires could team up and... at least do half of what Kaiser has done?

A little googling led me to these, but I thought there were a few more?

David Green - Hobby Lobby founder Net worth ~$6,000,000,000
Tom & Judy Love - Love's Country Stores founders - Net Worth: ~$5,000,000,000
Chad Richison - Paycom founder - Net worth: ~$1,300,000,000

Ah... doesn’t OKC miss Aubrey now? We haven’t had another Uber wealthy citizen step up yet. Tulsa wealthy families have historically been more civic minded in their philanthropy. OKC has Funk and Hamm now. Nuff said.

We also have the Greens. But they only seem to spend money on biblical artifiacts and bailing out or buying christian colleges.


Tulsa is indeed blessed to be the benefactor of the wealth and generosity of George Kaiser.

Let's not forget, Harold Hamm:

His younger wife took him to the cleaners - Harold Hamm's $975 Million Divorce Check: First Rejected, Then Cashed, Now Taxed: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2015/01/10/harold-hamms-975-million-divorce-check-first-rejected-then-cashed-now-taxed-but-when/#38a65e4077d9

Hamm's ex has been very philanthropic since the divorce. She has not held back on giving and she is to be applauded as well. Im not here to bash Hamm because he has spread some money around and if he has committed to the Gates' giving pledge, then thats awesome. But sure, when compared to what Kaiser is doing now, Hamm pales a bit. But hes not done giving Im sure and hes already donated more than all but a few Oklahomans.


Kaiser was the largest shareholder in Solyndra.
https://newsok.com/article/3621823/oklahomas-george-kaiser-linked-to-white-house-solyndra

Ya, so?

Seems that OKC's billionaires could team up and... at least do half of what Kaiser has done?

A little googling led me to these, but I thought there were a few more?

David Green - Hobby Lobby founder Net worth ~$6,000,000,000
Tom & Judy Love - Love's Country Stores founders - Net Worth: ~$5,000,000,000
Chad Richison - Paycom founder - Net worth: ~$1,300,000,000

Good luck with this one, he is too busy running his employee's into the ground to worry about actually helping his community.

(Charity) is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

-Oscar Wilde

It's not just Kaiser.

Tulsa also has the Schustermans (Samson Energy), the Helmerichs, (H&P) the Cadieux family (Quik Trip), the Warrens (Tulsa World and Warren Petroleum), Taylor-Lobeck family (Dollar-Thifty and Tulsa's former mayor), the Rooney family (Manhattan Construction), and many others. Many of which, if not most, are liberal.

(Charity) is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it, so, in the present state of things in England, the people who do most harm are the people who try to do most good; and at last we have had the spectacle of men who have really studied the problem and know the life – educated men who live in the East End – coming forward and imploring the community to restrain its altruistic impulses of charity, benevolence, and the like. They do so on the ground that such charity degrades and demoralises. They are perfectly right. Charity creates a multitude of sins.

-Oscar Wilde
Yes we know your view. Helping people is a Sin and unChristian. The real sinners are kind and givers.

What a distorted view we are being fed these days.

Just an interesting take from an interesting writer.

Just an interesting take from an interesting writer.
An interesting writer who was outspokenly anti family, church, middle class and industry.

Seems that OKC's billionaires could team up and... at least do half of what Kaiser has done?

A little googling led me to these, but I thought there were a few more?

David Green - Hobby Lobby founder Net worth ~$6,000,000,000
Tom & Judy Love - Love's Country Stores founders - Net Worth: ~$5,000,000,000
Chad Richison - Paycom founder - Net worth: ~$1,300,000,000

Also the Gaylord family, how many of them still live in OKC? I know Clay Bennett married into the family. Obviously big OU donors.

When my wife was in the non-profit world, it was widely known that Tulsa was more philanthropic than OKC. I want to say that their gala goal amount each year was twice as big in Tulsa than OKC because of this. This is purely anecdotal and may be based on that specific, national non-profit. I don’t know why, but it is very interesting.

Hamm and Richison (Paycom) are examples of what's wrong with high income earners these days. They trample on the backs of their employees and seek only to increase their own personal wealth regardless of what sustainability they lose along the way. They dont care about what happens in the community (so far as their company name at least still 'looks' good), so they give just enough to the right places to make them look like they do.

It's by no means unique to these two individuals though. This problem has been building since the 80's. The idea of more more more more more at the expense of the worker. Gone are the times that employers take a responsibility for their employees. It's not that employees want a hand-out. It's not about getting ridiculous benefits. It's about being respected as a person, being fairly compensated for their work, and not being forced to choose between mortgage and health insurance.

So what can they do about it? Stop with the top-down approach. Study after study after study shows that it doesn't work and only continues to give those at the top, a break they dont need. Cause that CEO really needs a company car, like they can't afford it on their own. Come on. Reinvest in your employees. If you have employees that enjoy coming to work, they are more productive. If you have employees that feel respected, they are loyal (even for less pay). <-That's been shown from many studies as well. Don't just put all that cash into private equity firms and their "returns". BS! The employees should be coming first. All the bullcrap the private equity folks pull is ridiculous. Their focus is narrowed only to squeezing another buck for their own pocket. Not about what can be done to make the best company/product possible. If you have a good product, the growth will come with it.

Hamm and Richison (Paycom) are examples of what's wrong with high income earners these days. They trample on the backs of their employees and seek only to increase their own personal wealth regardless of what sustainability they lose along the way. They dont care about what happens in the community (so far as their company name at least still 'looks' good), so they give just enough to the right places to make them look like they do.

It's by no means unique to these two individuals though. This problem has been building since the 80's. The idea of more more more more more at the expense of the worker. Gone are the times that employers take a responsibility for their employees. It's not that employees want a hand-out. It's not about getting ridiculous benefits. It's about being respected as a person, being fairly compensated for their work, and not being forced to choose between mortgage and health insurance.

So what can they do about it? Stop with the top-down approach. Study after study after study shows that it doesn't work and only continues to give those at the top, a break they dont need. Cause that CEO really needs a company car, like they can't afford it on their own. Come on. Reinvest in your employees. If you have employees that enjoy coming to work, they are more productive. If you have employees that feel respected, they are loyal (even for less pay). <-That's been shown from many studies as well. Don't just put all that cash into private equity firms and their "returns". BS! The employees should be coming first. All the bullcrap the private equity folks pull is ridiculous. Their focus is narrowed only to squeezing another buck for their own pocket. Not about what can be done to make the best company/product possible. If you have a good product, the growth will come with it.

This is not remotely accurate in general and not true specificly for the 2 job creators you mention

Well, leaving aside the Manifesto written above, I think it's pretty clear that OKC's billionaires have been more concerned with growing their companies than charitable giving. Not that there's anything wrong with that, they don't have an obligation to give hundreds of millions of dollars to their city. Would I prefer if they did? Of course. Harold Hamm could finance your dream Producers Coop development today, by signing a check. Or Maps 4. Or an OKC area rail system. But I can't expect a 70-something year old oil man to wake up one day and decide to give away part of his fortune on the desires of some young whipper-snappers.

This is not remotely accurate in general and not true specificly for the 2 job creators you mention

"Job creators", a term coined by the GOP about 8 years ago. The term was coined to deflect attention away from the wealthy and the disproportiante benefits they enjoy under the tax code and influence they have in comparison to wage earners.

This is not remotely accurate in general and not true specificly for the 2 job creators you mention

This is type of lazy post is my pet peeve. You claim that a long and specific post is "not remotely accurate" without providing any evidence or even clarifying your claims. This just adds nothing to the dialogue.

If the post I referenced contained any facts and was not just a smear post with an anti capitalism agenda. Maybe it would have elicited a longer response

My wife made well into 6 figures after only a couple years working at paycom. He may run employees into the ground but they are extremely well compensated, paycom has some of the highest paying non engineering/ non O&G jobs in the city. Also her stock options are worth well into 6 figures as well. Largely because she helped build a company and was rewarded with ownership in the company.

So to slam on Chad at paycom as getting rich on the backs of his employees is asinine and false. His employees grind but they get wealthy through the grind.

And I know a lot of executives who will tell you the most charitable thing they can do is build a company that provides incredible employement opportunities for the city. Steve jobs held the same view.

Okc is a player in the energy world largely because of Hamm. We’re in an important city because of CLR and CHK. Without Hamm we quickly become Tulsa.

Last Hamm isn’t worth $15 billion right now. Closer to $9-10. Hamm doesn’t have the straight cash Kaiser does. Almost all of his “wealth” is CLR ownership, he donates too much stock he loses control of CLR.

Well, leaving aside the Manifesto written above, I think it's pretty clear that OKC's billionaires have been more concerned with growing their companies than charitable giving. Not that there's anything wrong with that, they don't have an obligation to give hundreds of millions of dollars to their city. Would I prefer if they did? Of course. Harold Hamm could finance your dream Producers Coop development today, by signing a check. Or Maps 4. Or an OKC area rail system. But I can't expect a 70-something year old oil man to wake up one day and decide to give away part of his fortune on the desires of some young whipper-snappers.

No, they don't have to be charitable, but they also shouldn't be able to influence municipal, state, and federal legislation to benefit their own wealth disproportionately, which has been happening for years. Hamm is one citizen with incredible influence who both directly (fighting teacher pay raises) and indirectly (favoring his interests over other groups) drowns out the voices and needs of others in the community through his influence. Wealth disparity has increased dramatically and is economically unhealthy for the state and country. I don't think Hamm should have to donate if he doesn't want to, but I do think he should be taxed in more equitable ways for the common good. He is able to influence legislation to ensure that he neither has to be a charitable giver nor an equitable tax payer (as an individual and corporation).

This is not remotely accurate in general and not true specificly for the 2 job creators you mention

Its correct to one of them for sure, I know multiple people that work for him including my wife.

Removing per wife request.

Its correct to one of them for sure, I know multiple people that work for him including my wife.

I know multiple people that work for both companies and both companies compensation packages are very very competitive in their respective industries.

Ask someone at a accounting firm if they can not work lots of hours come tax time?? There are requirements in individual industries that are known.

If the post I referenced contained any facts and was not just a smear post with an anti capitalism agenda. Maybe it would have elicited a longer response

These are just excuses to actually use evidence to make an argument. First, if you actually think the post was a smear then address the specific points, but many of them have been reported elsewhere. I am open to a different evidence as I am not an expert in this area, but alas, you provided none. And, second, painting any critiques of the market simply as "anti-capitalism" is just a way to avoid the conversation. Critiquing how the market works is fundamental to a functioning democracy as has been evident by numerous economic crises created by business people throughout U.S. history.

No, they don't have to be charitable, but they also shouldn't be able to influence municipal, state, and federal legislation to benefit their own wealth disproportionately, which has been happening for years. Hamm is one citizen with incredible influence who both directly (fighting teacher pay raises) and indirectly (favoring his interests over other groups) drowns out the voices and needs of others in the community through his influence. Wealth disparity has increased dramatically and is economically unhealthy for the state and country. I don't think Hamm should have to donate if he doesn't want to, but I do think he should be taxed in more equitable ways for the common good. He is able to influence legislation to ensure that he neither has to be a charitable giver nor an equitable tax payer (as an individual and corporation).

But that's really a larger criticism of society in general, and more appropriate to the politics board. It's isn't specific to OKC vs Tulsa billionaires, other than in the general sense that Hamm is more politically active in conservative circles.

No, they don't have to be charitable, but they also shouldn't be able to influence municipal, state, and federal legislation to benefit their own wealth disproportionately, which has been happening for years. Hamm is one citizen with incredible influence who both directly (fighting teacher pay raises) and indirectly (favoring his interests over other groups) drowns out the voices and needs of others in the community through his influence. Wealth disparity has increased dramatically and is economically unhealthy for the state and country. I don't think Hamm should have to donate if he doesn't want to, but I do think he should be taxed in more equitable ways for the common good. He is able to influence legislation to ensure that he neither has to be a charitable giver nor an equitable tax payer (as an individual and corporation).

Good luck changing human nature and the 2,000 year old saying he who has the gold makes the rules.

Good luck changing human nature and the 2,000 year old saying he who has the gold makes the rules.

First, individualistic greed is not inherent in human nature. There are many societies where the good of the community has been of high priority. It's important to understand that Western, capitalist societies are far more individualistic than most societies in human history and this may taint what we think is "human nature." However, even in Western societies there is still a lot of focus on the common good by a lot of people, groups, and organizations. Second, in my post I was pretty clear that the common good should be legislated specifically because I don't expect individuals to always do the equitable thing.

First, individualistic greed is not inherent in human nature. There are many societies where the good of the community has been of high priority. It's important to understand that Western, capitalist societies are far more individualistic than most societies in human history and this may taint what we think is "human nature." However, even in Western societies there is still a lot of focus on the common good by a lot of people, groups, and organizations. Second, in my post I was pretty clear that the common good should be legislated specifically because I don't expect individuals to always do the equitable thing.

Name some of these utopia's that existed where everybody loved everybody

Name some of these utopia's that existed where everybody loved everybody

I'm happy to continue the discussion, but not if you respond to my posts asking me to respond to your silly misrepresentations of them. Let me know if you have a real question. If you want to study the cultural and historical distinctions between societities with more individualistic or collectivist cultures then there are plenty of sources online you should be able to find yourself.

This is type of lazy post is my pet peeve. You claim that a long and specific post is "not remotely accurate" without providing any evidence or even clarifying your claims. This just adds nothing to the dialogue.This accounts for around 90% of Boulders posts.

I'm happy to continue the discussion, but not if you respond to my posts asking me to respond to your silly misrepresentations of them. Let me know if you have a real question. If you want to study the cultural and historical distinctions between societities with more individualistic or collectivist cultures then there are plenty of sources online you should be able to find yourself.

I don't think this is the appropriate thread for you to continue the discussion here.

This is not remotely accurate in general and not true specificly for the 2 job creators you mention

Are you freaking kidding me?

Mr Paycom is one of the worst cases of this. Only caveat that i'll add here is that this didn't personally happen to me (i would never apply there), but friends/co-workers have had these experiences there.
Forcing employees to work 60 hours a week or else they aren't team players (and they're salary so they don't get overtime). Get the flu and miss one day of training when you first start and you're fired. They put on this public face of how awesome the company is, but it's a VERY different story inside. If you're not one of the workers that have drank the kool-aid and prefer to never see your home/family, then it's a crap hole. Yes, they are building a fast growing company...but on the backs of the employees that are being worked to death. They also dont advertise their screw-ups. Got one story for a employee that in an unrelated way, left just after Paycom lost the payroll for a couple million employees. No backups either. Do you think that an overworked staff might have had something to do with that?

As for private equity, i've lived that for 10 of my 13 years at my employer. I can tell you that through having different private equity firms involved over the years, this is ABSOLUTELY the case. The private equity/board plan has been around for 100 years. Hell, go watch how much private equity was screwing around with Henry Ford when he first started. He's not a very good person (on many levels) but in his weird way he did try to help his employees. That can be unpacked a lot in a positive/negative way but the point being the private equity wasn't interested in the employees or the product, they wanted their money. We've since gone public and the world has become a lot brighter for us.

So yeah, i'll stick with my view.

Yes, it is absolutely fitting that Chad Richison's name is, in fact, "Chad."

No, they don't have to be charitable, but they also shouldn't be able to influence municipal, state, and federal legislation to benefit their own wealth disproportionately, which has been happening for years. Hamm is one citizen with incredible influence who both directly (fighting teacher pay raises) and indirectly (favoring his interests over other groups) drowns out the voices and needs of others in the community through his influence. Wealth disparity has increased dramatically and is economically unhealthy for the state and country. I don't think Hamm should have to donate if he doesn't want to, but I do think he should be taxed in more equitable ways for the common good. He is able to influence legislation to ensure that he neither has to be a charitable giver nor an equitable tax payer (as an individual and corporation).

Excellent post...