Why do democracies wind up always favoring the rich, when they are they few?

Question

The definition of democracy which is majority rules (for the most part), implies that policies and laws would at least be at a minimum equalized between the few rich and the many non rich. But in actuality it seems that societies that are democratic have laws and policies that are designed to clearly favor the few rich above everyone else.
Does this just go back to the idea that money brings about influence that those who don't have it simply cannot compete? Which of course raises the question, if that is the case, are these really democracies?

Answer 1

I don't believe that you can support your theory with any factual evidence

Answer 2

All regimes favor the rich. Fascism, Communism, Totalitarian regimes of every stripe. In the Soviet Union there were "Vlasti". Party members who were part of the elite. They had special shops which only they could patronize. North Korea has an elite of wealthy party officials who amass fortunes while starvation is rampant throughout the "Democratic Peoples Republic". The same in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Imperial Japan, during the Pacific War, had the "Zaibatsu". The heads of the twelve major banking and industrial concerns.
BTW, the last "democracy" was in ancient Greece. The closest modern-day version might be Switzerland. Even there the rich have favor. All of the other nations have one form or another of representative democracy.

Answer 3

We do not live in a democracy, rather a democratic republic. Majority rules is a myth.
What rules is the power structure. Democrats of Republicans need a ton of money to be a Senator or Representative. Campaigning is very expensive.
Yes it is true that those who do not have money cannot compete in the political scene. The answer? Make more money and get in there and take a swing at it.