At the risk of being unpopular as hell: The way I read it from the article (as an unrelated party from a different country) they can host such events with their own funding and organization, if they want them to happen. Why should public spending go towards subsidizing events, when those could be realized by e.g. a private co-op of the people interested?

There is a case to be made for when the target group of people can’t realistically be expected to have enough resources/capacity to do so, so personally I’m not in favor of a blanket ban without exceptions, such as the law seems to be here, but I don’t like superfluous subsidies.

It’s a step, but trying to limit how money itself is spent will always create loopholes your opponent has better lawyers than you to exploit. Imho the better way to discipline billionaires would be to change tax code such that borrowing money against securities or anything like it (such as stock) is counted as realizing their value, which would trigger capital gains tax obligations.

It’d have somewhat similar effects to a wealth tax with way less administrative load for the state. The only exception I would grant is when you’re buying a single-person/single-family residential property you’re going to be living in yourself.