A billion and one problems: How America’s wealthiest shape politics and threaten democracy

American elections have never been cheap. A combination of long election cycles, primaries, conventions, and debates, as well as an immense population to campaign, means that the cost of becoming leader of the free world is certainly quite steep. Recently, elections have become significantly more expensive with a total of 5.5 billion dollars being spent in Harris’ and Trump’s 2024 race to the Oval Office. The enormous cost of campaigns quite naturally creates dependence on both massive grassroots donations, and those with billions in cash to spare. It is no wonder that the Trump campaign so eagerly accepted the support of Elon Musk or why Harris accepted donations of $1 million from 28 billionaires. This article hopes to show how in the decade and a half since 2010, malignant issues within financing elections have been exploited and effectively commercialised by those who use their boundless wealth to achieve their political ends. It further aims to highlight how such issues are more important than ever in the digital age, where the power of these men is unprecedented.

Curiously, much like both parties now cling to billionaire and multi-millionaire donors, campaign finance throughout the US has generally been a topic of bipartisan agreement. The first true act of Congress to limit the monstrous effect of Gilded Age political corruption, the Tillman Act, was seen as so necessary by both parties that it passed without debate. Similarly, the Federal Election Campaign Act passed with 372-23 in favour. Finally, the 2002, Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act saw Republican John Mccain and Democrat Russ Feingold cooperate to stop the pervasive influence of soft money in US elections. The question thus becomes, how has this historical bipartisan support of limiting the manipulative effects of campaign donations been overturned so recently?

The answer to the question above, like many current trends in the US, can be found in the neoliberal turn that represented the Ronald Reagan election. With an emphasis on the small state and neo-liberal economics, Reagan’s ire to government intervention naturally stretched to regulating campaign finance. Though he openly spoke out against it, it would be in the courts where Reagan mostly influenced legislation on campaign funds.

The removal of regulations controlling the influence of billionaire donors and allowing said donors to remain anonymous is undeniably allowing donors to play a far outsized role in American democracy than they should

Citizens United V. FEC (2010) was an enormously consequential case in the Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, America’s highest court ruled that campaign donations were part of the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and thus all laws regulating campaign finance were struck down as unconstitutional. Of the five judges who voted to repeal limits on campaign funding, two were appointed by Reagan and another by Reagan’s successor George H.W. Bush.

The Supreme Court in America deals with countless cases a year, most of which scarcely make a sound in the general consciousness and media, so then why is Citizens United so quintessential for understanding modern American politics?

However, before beginning an examination of the money in US elections, it must be stressed that the level of influence within the hands of rich men isn’t a new development globally. In Russia, the oligarchs that emerged from the economic mayhem of the early 1990s have formed an almost parasitic relationship with Vladamir Putin, continuing to support his authority in exchange for sustained access to Russia’s massive natural resource wealth. Likewise in India, Mukesh Ambani, probably now best known for his son’s recent godfather-esque wedding to another Indian tycoon’s daughter, has frequently been called a ‘plutocrat’, using the massive wealth of reliance industries to influence politics and regulators. So let it be clear, the influence of American billionaires in national politics is not a case of American exceptionalism and if anything, they can be considered a latecomer to this trend.

Post Citizens United, US politics has changed substantially. Between 2010 and 2020, the ten largest donors gave over $1.2 billion in campaign funds, contributing 7% of total finance, six% more than the previous decade. The ruling has led to a rise in grey and dark money, exacerbated by the power of anonymity under the tag of 501(c)(4) ‘charitable’ groups, who are able to give unlimited funds with no need to put a name to those dollars. The removal of regulations controlling the influence of billionaire donors and allowing said donors to remain anonymous is undeniably allowing donors to play a far outsized role in American democracy than they should.

To use a metaphor, Murdoch owns a speaker’s tool and Musk owns the forum

Since the 2010 ruling, the Republican Party has exploited the political landscape effectively. With its emphasis on low tax and reduced regulation, it has garnered the support of individuals and groups that prioritise economic growth and wealth creation. It is no wonder that post-2010, fiscally conservative factions such as the Tea Party movement and Trumpism have become the dominant faction of the Republican Party. In fact, Trump, as a billionaire, holds a unique view best suited to benefit from this unregulated political climate. Though Harris may have attracted donations from more billionaires, Trump was far more dependent on his billionaire donors, lacking the massive grassroots campaign of the Democrats.

Unlike most of Trump’s billionaire donors, Elon Musk has been strangely prominent in his campaign, almost mirroring the celebrity-based campaign of the Democrats. In fact, Elon seems to reject the trend of the elusive billionaire class. With his appearances on chat shows, SNL and obsessive use of X (formally Twitter), Musk has played a very public role in the US election, speaking at Trump rallies and frequently posting on his platform in support of Trump.

Nonetheless, some might argue that Musk is no different from the media barons of yesteryear. Rupert Murdoch, for example, owner of The Sun newspaper and Fox News, among many other news sites, has often been seen as a net evil to the public discourse, breaching the law countless times for a breaking scoop and endorsing lies on his media sites. However, Elon Musk is no Murdoch. Elon’s ownership and subsequent weaponisation of X, while insisting it remain neutral, is a direct attack on freedom of speech, allowing those who promote hate speech onto the platform while silencing critique with bans or shadow bans. To use a metaphor, Murdoch owns a speaker’s tool and Musk owns the forum. While Murdoch might be odious, Musk is dangerous, with a personal investment in a political campaign and the ability to alter elections to a scale not yet seen before.

America’s obsession with wealth has handed the fate of its democracy to the uber rich shaping not only business but the information we consume

The question is thus, what does Elon Musk want with Donald Trump? Musk draws the majority of his wealth from Tesla, while Trump has promised to increase US extraction of natural resources. The answer to their relationship lies in two factors, unions and the universe. Musk has famously been anti-union, so in light of a pro-union Biden administration, he would turn to Trump whose Project 2025 has promised to do away with numerous workers’ rights fought for by unions. Secondly, there is SpaceX. As the CEO of the world’s largest private space technology company, Musk may seek to take an axe to NASA’s expensive Artemis Program to nominally save costs to the taxpayer with the additional benefit of boosting his business interest.

The point however remains, Trump won, more decisively than in 2016. He won the electoral college easily with three million more votes than Harris. Such an outcome is no outlier in American history. More than perhaps any country in the world, the accumulation of massive wealth is celebrated, and redistribution by the government is resented. For as long as America has existed as a liberal independent nation, wealth has often been used by the men who control it to determine the narratives around them. Wealthy robber barons of the Gilded Age gave heavily to philanthropy to hide the pinnacle of wealth inequality they represented, similar to how Musk and Trump speak of protecting the working class while implementing a policy that wholly benefits them. It is the same reason why when one asks for the most prolific drug dealers in the world, they think of Escobar and not the Sackler Family.

As stated before, Trump’s victory with billionaire backing is not an area of American exceptionalism nor is it particularly unique to American society. Much like the French Revolution was described as “Saturn devouring its own children”, America’s obsession with wealth has handed the fate of its democracy to the uber rich shaping not only business but the information we consume.