Appeal to wealth

Appeal to wealth, also known as the argumentum ad crumenam or the argument to the purse, is the fallacy of concluding that because someone is more wealthy, they must be better, smarter, more moral, or more likely to be correct. Therefore, by corollary of this fallacy, the poor must be somehow inferior to the rich.

This is the opposite of the appeal to poverty.

On Wealth
While there are those that have, through luck and some talent, become the hallowed "rags to riches" tale (e.g. Andrew Carnegie), they are the exception rather than the rule. Usually wealth is made through inheritance and/or an by education given by rich parents. The socioeconomic factors in which you are raised have more effect on your income and lifetime than your intelligence (see George W. Bush).

Examples
Not only does he not tell "true stories", but he is the son of a conservative politician, A. Willis Robertson, and has made much of his $200 million to $1 billion net worth through sucking money out of the fundamentalist Christian population, inheritance from his father, and selling television evangelism stations. The only thing that he's doing "right" is telling a certain part of the population about "problems" and requesting money to "fix" the problem (e.g. homosexuality, baby-eating, secular humanism, etc.).
 * "Pat Robertson is a Christian minister, look how much money he has! He's obviously doing something right."

A counter-example is Bill Gates, one of the richest people in the world, who also has no official religious affiliation. Beside that, just because someone is wealthy does not mean that they are clear-headed, rational, or anything other than they have a lot more money than the majority of the populace.
 * "Many of the richest people in America are Christians-are you telling me they're all wrong?"