But do they want to be in charge for reasons other than enrichment?

What are those reasons?

Some very wealthy people conclude that their success in the business world qualifies them to run other parts of the world.

IOW, since they've created Microsoft and are the richest people in the world, they NATURALLY are better qualified to fix the schools, cure AIDS, end hunger than folks who, by their standards, haven't accomplished as much.

There's nothing a school superintendent knows or does that the tycoon doesn't know or can't do better because he's PROVEN his abilities in the crucible of of a highly competitive market place.

They come to see the rules of the marketplace (which they've mastered) as the rules for ALL human endeavor.

There is definitely a facet to "corporations" (why I put it in quotes in a second) that can best be illustrated by the audio of the Enron executives laughing about how screwed grandma was going to be when she got her heating bill.  And there is a real danger in the privitization movement, most recently seen in the new push for charter schools at the expense of public education institutions. My views of corporations as a child was shaped by Rollerball with James Caan as much as anybody's.

I do think they are walking a tightrope, hoping that their de facto rule doesn't actually become de jure rule since that means the tea partiers as well as tree huggers will be on their steps with the signs of protest.  In other words, even though, as Tears for Fears says, everyone wants to rule the world, businesses want to be able to control the decision-making process around government, but they don't want to be saddled with the explicit responsibility.  Of course, everyone here by-and-large would like to control it, too.  It is just that the big corporations and industries have the ability to influence it. 

The reason that I put the word corporations in quotes is that as you hinted at one point (ie American's largest businesses), much of what is wrong with corporations has to do with just a handful of the actual corporations out there.  The company that is technically a corporation down the street and which has 170 employees making widgets isn't the problem that companies like BP, Walmart and Massey are.  In particular the multinational coporations are particularly troublesome when it comes to issues of regulation and employment, and ultimately democracy.

And the reason I bring this up is because there is a sense in this blog (or leaves me with the impression, rightly or wrongly)  that I see in other blogs and comments, which is that these corporations have ushered in something new upon the scene in the recent years.  As if in 1890s or 1910s we had this flourishing democracy where the monied elite did not influence politics.  As if back then we didn't have companies getting the government to bring in the foot soldiers to take down striking workers looking for an eleven hour work day. 

As if when we look back into human history that there wasn't a time we haven't more or less organized our lives around our work rather than our leisure (with the monied elite in charge, or the ones in charge had all the wealth).  I'm all for more leisure and facilitating a society that embraces the finer things in life over making a few extra dollars.  But this isn't the corporations' fault.  They just came upon the scene with it already in place, and have exploited it to the extent that they can to what they perceive as their advantage.

The moment privatization no longer is to their advantage for whatever reason (suddenly the charter schools have to teach all the kids in poverty as well), is the moment they will back down from it.  I believe that anti-monopoly legislation was able to be passed not because it was good for the people, but because enough of the businessmen at the time saw it as in their interest as well.  And so on. 

There are definitely individual executives who can taste the power that has nothing to do with making money per se and want more of it.  But that has always been the case. I guess in a long about way corporations pretty much act the way businesses have always acted because the executives who are actually making the decisions are the pretty much the same as they have always been. 

The question is how does one effectively counter their influence and power.  In other words, how does one disempower them and empower the people, without the people becoming them?  Which they are.  Is it possible to distribute power equally throughout a society that embraces democracy without chaos breaking out?

Anecdote.

I was hosting a dinner for my board of directors.  One of my daughters, a college freshman , was a guest (the occasion made that appropriate)  seated near enough for me occasionally  to hear some of the conversation. She was arguing in favor of nuclear disarmament. Her immediate neighbor-also a ceo- was taking each of her statements and making the conventional counter argument . In a businesslike manner, neither indulgent nor over emphatic..

Finally he laughed and said " I'm on the board of the   XXX Theological Seminary and that's our position too. I just wanted to see how far you'd go".

So,' hey you never know.'

Just thought it would be interesting to note that one of the earliest events in U.S. history (when looking at the U.S. as an extention of the colonial powers that arrived after the Native Americans), was the Charter of the Virginia Company of London (aka London Company), an English joint stock company, established by royal charter by James I of England in 1606, with the purpose of establishing colonial settlements in North America.  I suppose one can say we started out in part as a business venture and still are today.