The world’s richest man, Elon Musk, has an office in the White House and played a prominent role in Donald Trump’s inauguration. He has a formal position reshaping government in the new administration and has already derailed a bipartisan spending deal in Congress. Global leaders are taking Musk’s meddling in European politics seriously, based on the perception or reality that he has influence over the new president.
Musk’s personal wealth ballooned by an estimated $170 billion in the month after Trump’s election win, with investors betting that Musk’s companies — some of which are under federal investigation, and benefit from billions in federal contracts — will receive favorable treatment from the new administration.
It is hard to think of any modern parallel. And it is a direct result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, which turned 15 this week.
Musk’s astonishing influence over Trump and the Republican Party is not merely a function of his wealth, his celebrity, or his ownership of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter). It is attributable to his pouring at least $277 million into Super PACs last year, which purchased enormous sway with the new administration.
This hundreds of millions in political spending would have been impossible — illegal — before Citizens United opened the floodgates to unlimited money in politics.
The 2010 decision struck down limits on supposedly “independent” political spending, opening the door to billionaire-funded Super PACs and leading to an explosion in untraceable dark money.
Last year, roughly 44 percent of all money raised to support Trump came from just 10 donors, according to OpenSecrets, with most of that money going to the purportedly independent Super PACs made possible by Citizens United. Musk alone gave $239 million to his America PAC, which spent $153 million on the presidential race.
The Supreme Court in Citizens United reasoned that such independent political spending cannot corrupt officeholders. That argument was highly dubious from the start, but the fiction of “independence” has almost completely vanished, thanks to a 2024 advisory opinion from the Federal Election Commission allowing campaigns and Super PACs to coordinate on canvassing activities.
That opinion allowed the Trump campaign to outsource key campaign operations to Musk’s America PAC, amplifying the corruptive influence of Musk’s spending, and further illustrating the folly of the Supreme Court’s reasoning.
Musk’s ability to translate economic power into political power is a glaring example of how Citizens United changed politics. But it is hardly unique. The Democratic nominee, Kamala Harris, embraced big donors from corporate America and allowed them to shape economic policy; Harris never made money’s influence on politics a central theme in her campaign. This was a contrast from the 2020 race, where candidates vying for the Democratic nomination promised to change the campaign finance system, and adopted a range of voluntary pledges to demonstrate their commitment to getting big money out of politics.
In his farewell address, President Joe Biden warned of America moving toward an “oligarchy” of “extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy.” It was good to hear, but he did little during his term in office to limit money’s influence on politics. In fact, it was the Biden-nominated Democratic FEC Commissioner who cast the deciding vote on the advisory opinion that paved the way for Trump to coordinate with Musk’s America PAC, part of a broader deregulatory trend that occurred on Biden’s watch.
Musk’s stunning political influence offers a stark example of how Citizens United enabled billionaires to wield disproportionate power over policy and governance. If this trajectory continues, the voices of everyday Americans will be further drowned out by the interests of a wealthy few.
Without meaningful campaign finance reform — and a Supreme Court that will uphold those reforms — the erosion of our democracy will only accelerate. The American people must demand greater transparency, accountability, and a political system that serves the public interest, not just the interests of the ultra-wealthy.
Source link
