Painfully insightful as always with stellar writing. There is unfortunately an element of hopelessness in efforts at counterbalancing the avalanche of money in politics. I say this as a resident of the South where the love of guns and authoritarianism is accompanied by a hatred of government and unions which has become deeply ingrained. Certainly the latter are deeply flawed, but they are the only real levers of influence available to the non-billionaire class and which “We The People” have any direct input over. Then again the way Trump / MAGA are going elections may be meaningless as well.
Thank you for this article. It clearly illustrates the outsized role money can play in modern elections. The comparison showing that Musk’s $300 million in spending is equivalent to a $77 donation from someone with the median American net worth of $193,000 is striking and unsettling. Many Americans already sense that wealth exerts disproportionate influence in politics, but this example puts that imbalance into stark perspective.
Here in the UK we have the same "money in politics" problem. And until very recently, we've also been a two-party system. Tories on the centre-right and Labour centre-left. But that could be about to change.
Ironically, the emergence of a right-wing challenger, (Reform), could significantly help the left. Well, it already did: in the last General Election, Labour achieved a landslide because the right-wing vote was split. That's the "benefit" of a first-past-the-post system.
But Labour, (also backed by the rich), has failed miserably to enact policies to help the average man in the street. So we now have a new, left-wing, challenger: The Green Party.
The Greens have historically focussed on climate, but that's all changed. They have rebranded as a true left-wing party, funded purely by their members. So no rich donors. What does that mean. It means tackling: inequality; failing public services; and looking to renationalise essential infrastructure - water, for instance. And yes... TAXING THE RICH.
The exponential difference in power between the oligarchy and the working and middle class community is nearly unfathomable. The answer is unfortunately going to be particularly violent.
It is true that candidates who are outspent can sometimes win. I once did a graph of this issue for one of the party committees, looking at U.S. Senate races. There were a few races where the lesser spender had won, but the vast majority of races went to the candidates who spent the most money. You can sometimes win while being outspent 2-1, or maybe 3-1, but above that, your chances are bad. And on the subject of how incredibly cheap buying politicians can be, Peter Thiel donated $15 mlllion to J.D. Vance's Republican Senate primary.
At least 20 years ago, Ariana Huffington made the observation on a radio program that buying a politician was the investment that returned the highest ROI for a corporation. And then Citizens United made it so much easier. Do we have a project 2029 waiting in the wings that will restore the spirit of our constitution?
Capitalist greed can never be sated. We pour history, our lands, our people and still it is not enough. We pour out futures into it, and it will not be satisfied until there is no future.
While the likes of Elon Musk obviously have effectively endless funds, there are at least limits on what they can _buy_. There are finite advertising venues, for one thing, and a lot of them are contracting in size, in particular broadcast TV and print journalism. My mailbox now bulges each election year with stupefyingly huge mounds of direct-mail marketing, all of which goes directly into the recycling bin. I assume that's true for most of it.
Despite a veritable avalanche of Trump spending in 2020, he still lost. (By a lot.) Harris managed to spend $1.5 billion within only a few months' time last time around, but she still lost. (Sadly, also by a lot.) While excess money in politics is never a good thing, I'm more worried about the likes of Russian troll farms that are likely impossible to track. They're getting funding from somewhere, and we've already previously confirmed the extent of their meddling in American elections.
Finally, while I have nearly nothing positive to say about billionaires, I think we can assume that most or all of them want to remain billionaires. Would that be the case if Trump succeeds in destroying Western democracy? (I'm guessing not. Okay, he'd probably still have Elon. And Thiel. But still.) The markets may still be high for now, but a private equity or AI crash could change that within a matter of weeks, if not days – and as we know from Trump's TACO, he chickens the fuck out when the shit hits the fan.
True that spending more is not automatic victory. But when you can give a lot of money to both sides, the ability to get your policy preferences passed is pretty strong.
Amen to the Labor Movement!! It would certainly be a better way to help Americans instead of the buckets of child molesters and complete idiots who back the fake "guardians" who murder innocent people if they don't jump out of their cars on command. Money is their love; to hell with dying children, the poor, and anyone who is not ready to draw up plans for another "special" prison.
"Citizens United (558 U.S. 310) held that lawmakers cannot regulate a corporation’s right to spend independently in elections. But regulations are just one tool in the legislative toolbox. Another extraordinarily powerful tool has gone largely unexamined until now: every state’s virtually unlimited authority to define the powers it grants its corporations."
Let’s face it the neo-liberals, party leaders, and wealthy elites form a small cabal of well organized power brokers whose only goal is keeping and expanding their power. These people are dangerous in their ability to persuade; telling us they want what we want, but never delivering. Its seems clear, given the organizing of renters and businesses in Minneapolis, and the election of local progressive thinkers around the country, there is a growing awareness that immediate change is necessary, and organizing is paramount.
Being 42 years old, I remember that this problem far preceded Citizens United. Obama ran on getting money out of politics, at least ostensibly. And things had been shitty for working people for a long time. With so many things going on at once, including the rise of Fox News and social media, it’s hard to keep track of how the current situation is a product of Citizens United vs. the circumstances that predated it. I’d love to read a thinkpiece that succinctly disentangles it. In fact, I probably did read one once, but failed to retain it in this “flood the zone” environment.
> What, do you think, would be a reasonable amount to spend to protect a $500 billion investment if these companies truly believed that it were threatened?
Well, I think it's worth looking at Paramount and Warner in this regard
Painfully insightful as always with stellar writing. There is unfortunately an element of hopelessness in efforts at counterbalancing the avalanche of money in politics. I say this as a resident of the South where the love of guns and authoritarianism is accompanied by a hatred of government and unions which has become deeply ingrained. Certainly the latter are deeply flawed, but they are the only real levers of influence available to the non-billionaire class and which “We The People” have any direct input over. Then again the way Trump / MAGA are going elections may be meaningless as well.
Thank you for this article. It clearly illustrates the outsized role money can play in modern elections. The comparison showing that Musk’s $300 million in spending is equivalent to a $77 donation from someone with the median American net worth of $193,000 is striking and unsettling. Many Americans already sense that wealth exerts disproportionate influence in politics, but this example puts that imbalance into stark perspective.
Here in the UK we have the same "money in politics" problem. And until very recently, we've also been a two-party system. Tories on the centre-right and Labour centre-left. But that could be about to change.
Ironically, the emergence of a right-wing challenger, (Reform), could significantly help the left. Well, it already did: in the last General Election, Labour achieved a landslide because the right-wing vote was split. That's the "benefit" of a first-past-the-post system.
But Labour, (also backed by the rich), has failed miserably to enact policies to help the average man in the street. So we now have a new, left-wing, challenger: The Green Party.
The Greens have historically focussed on climate, but that's all changed. They have rebranded as a true left-wing party, funded purely by their members. So no rich donors. What does that mean. It means tackling: inequality; failing public services; and looking to renationalise essential infrastructure - water, for instance. And yes... TAXING THE RICH.
Class warfare is back.
The exponential difference in power between the oligarchy and the working and middle class community is nearly unfathomable. The answer is unfortunately going to be particularly violent.
Yeah. There is no other way at this point. I'm ready for it frankly
It is true that candidates who are outspent can sometimes win. I once did a graph of this issue for one of the party committees, looking at U.S. Senate races. There were a few races where the lesser spender had won, but the vast majority of races went to the candidates who spent the most money. You can sometimes win while being outspent 2-1, or maybe 3-1, but above that, your chances are bad. And on the subject of how incredibly cheap buying politicians can be, Peter Thiel donated $15 mlllion to J.D. Vance's Republican Senate primary.
At least 20 years ago, Ariana Huffington made the observation on a radio program that buying a politician was the investment that returned the highest ROI for a corporation. And then Citizens United made it so much easier. Do we have a project 2029 waiting in the wings that will restore the spirit of our constitution?
Capitalist greed can never be sated. We pour history, our lands, our people and still it is not enough. We pour out futures into it, and it will not be satisfied until there is no future.
How are people supposed to live with this garbage going on? I feel like vomiting every time I read the news. Never mind my own personal stress.
While the likes of Elon Musk obviously have effectively endless funds, there are at least limits on what they can _buy_. There are finite advertising venues, for one thing, and a lot of them are contracting in size, in particular broadcast TV and print journalism. My mailbox now bulges each election year with stupefyingly huge mounds of direct-mail marketing, all of which goes directly into the recycling bin. I assume that's true for most of it.
Despite a veritable avalanche of Trump spending in 2020, he still lost. (By a lot.) Harris managed to spend $1.5 billion within only a few months' time last time around, but she still lost. (Sadly, also by a lot.) While excess money in politics is never a good thing, I'm more worried about the likes of Russian troll farms that are likely impossible to track. They're getting funding from somewhere, and we've already previously confirmed the extent of their meddling in American elections.
Finally, while I have nearly nothing positive to say about billionaires, I think we can assume that most or all of them want to remain billionaires. Would that be the case if Trump succeeds in destroying Western democracy? (I'm guessing not. Okay, he'd probably still have Elon. And Thiel. But still.) The markets may still be high for now, but a private equity or AI crash could change that within a matter of weeks, if not days – and as we know from Trump's TACO, he chickens the fuck out when the shit hits the fan.
True that spending more is not automatic victory. But when you can give a lot of money to both sides, the ability to get your policy preferences passed is pretty strong.
Amen to the Labor Movement!! It would certainly be a better way to help Americans instead of the buckets of child molesters and complete idiots who back the fake "guardians" who murder innocent people if they don't jump out of their cars on command. Money is their love; to hell with dying children, the poor, and anyone who is not ready to draw up plans for another "special" prison.
Thought from the title that I'd be reading about ICE but oh look it's one of the three dozen other dumpster fires that makes for American society
Same. That added money from the Big Beautiful Bill feels like an avalanche waiting to hit.
Unions, yes. Also, The Montana Plan has potential: https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2025/08/07/transparent-election-initiative/
"Citizens United (558 U.S. 310) held that lawmakers cannot regulate a corporation’s right to spend independently in elections. But regulations are just one tool in the legislative toolbox. Another extraordinarily powerful tool has gone largely unexamined until now: every state’s virtually unlimited authority to define the powers it grants its corporations."
The Montana Plan seems promising. I hope that other states will follow.
Let’s face it the neo-liberals, party leaders, and wealthy elites form a small cabal of well organized power brokers whose only goal is keeping and expanding their power. These people are dangerous in their ability to persuade; telling us they want what we want, but never delivering. Its seems clear, given the organizing of renters and businesses in Minneapolis, and the election of local progressive thinkers around the country, there is a growing awareness that immediate change is necessary, and organizing is paramount.
Being 42 years old, I remember that this problem far preceded Citizens United. Obama ran on getting money out of politics, at least ostensibly. And things had been shitty for working people for a long time. With so many things going on at once, including the rise of Fox News and social media, it’s hard to keep track of how the current situation is a product of Citizens United vs. the circumstances that predated it. I’d love to read a thinkpiece that succinctly disentangles it. In fact, I probably did read one once, but failed to retain it in this “flood the zone” environment.
> What, do you think, would be a reasonable amount to spend to protect a $500 billion investment if these companies truly believed that it were threatened?
Well, I think it's worth looking at Paramount and Warner in this regard