Bezos has vastly more power than AOC. His decisions affect the lives of 840,000 direct employees and at least as many again - I'm not sure the figures even exist - "freelance" content suppliers, small businesses, and casual workers.
His tax avoidance policies have a significant impact on the budgets of the larger Western countries.
AOC has a media profile, but - so far - almost no influence at all on US policy. That may change in the future, but given that the Dem Establishment seem to consider her a dangerous extremist, it's possible she'll be sidelined into becoming her generation's powerless token left-leaning icon.
I said that different sorts of power were fungible. I did not say that a specific sum can be used to acquire a highly specific office by any particular individual. It's entirely possible to use vast wealth inefficiently and fail to acquire political power or influence.
It's possible to use the same wealth efficiently to pay individuals to study the problem of which individuals to contribute to in order to acquire increasing and undue influence.
Your argument is that you shot at someone five times and failed to injure them thus guns doing kill people.
He didn't, but with his donations to the DNC and the creation of Hawkfish, he'll have an inordinate amount of power in the direction of the party for years to come regardless because of his money.
Certainly in some ways. But AOC (with others) arguably shifted an entire mainstream party's platform. I think that the "hard power" that Bezos has is larger, but the "soft power" wielded by political and cultural elites is massive and easy to underestimate.
