Do the wealthy still "Holla Back?"

According to Hayek, they still do, well, circa 1960 that is. I rather like the idea of having a certain sect of the wealthy class that, after attaining their corpulent supply of currency, sit around, sip wine, and play exuberant amounts of polo. It's harmless, well deserved, and pretty darn classy if you ask me. What I don't like however, is the existence of an upper-upper class; a hyper rich elite that practices not the leisurely lifestyle of the aforementioned wealthy class, but devotes the majority of their time to consolidating, growing, and and hoarding their wealth at the expense of the "employed majority." Hayek mentions on page 123 that,

"When an employed majority determines legislation and policy, conditions will tend to be adapted to the standards of that group and become less favorable to the independent."

This notion would hold truth in a society where hyper-rich and corporate interests effects on governmental legislation were proportional to the majority of the citizens. Unfortunately for the United States, or at least her working class "employed majority", this has proven to be very questionable. I fail to see how the voice of the majority can be heard over that of a 1% that controls more wealth than the bottom 50%, especially in the United States. I'm not bashing Hayek on his point made in this portion of the chapter as much as I'm curious as to how he'd respond to the gross permutation the wealth distribution in the United States has taken. Clearly, this is a major problem that needs solving; does the solution lie in government intervention? If yes, what sort of intervention? Higher tax brackets? Limits on political influence?

If the solution lies outside of government intervention, where then?