The candidates favored by billionaires and industry backers almost certainly won’t do as well in the midterms as they did two years ago, when the favorites of Elon Musk and other superrich individuals won numerous races, including the presidency. But big money is still warping American elections, putting weak candidates on equal financial footing with stronger ones, making politicians from both parties beholden to the rich instead of their constituents, and blocking more populist policies. There is little doubt that Democratic victories this fall will put the United States on a better footing, but our democracy ultimately can’t thrive if a class of oligarchs can use their wealth to dominate the political system.
Judicial rulings, mostly notably the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, have eliminated most restrictions on campaign spending by the wealthy and corporations. Each subsequent election cycle since, companies and billionaires have upped their political involvement, in terms of both raw dollars and the aggressiveness of their efforts. The 2024 cycle represented something of an inflection point. About 20 percent of campaign donations to candidates and political donations, more than $3 billion in total, came from billionaires and their immediate family members, according to an analysis by The New York Times. Six individuals or families donated more than $100 million, led by Elon Musk, who spent an estimated $290 million. He funded a get-out-the vote operation in swing states, the kind of organization usually built by candidates or political parties.
All six of those families backed Republican candidates. That spending helped the GOP win the House, Senate, and presidency.
Meanwhile, numerous companies funded super PACs and other campaign committees, usually to defeat Democratic candidates and boost Republicans. Perhaps the most notable was the cryptocurrency industry, which donated more than $40 million to a super PAC to oust a critic of the industry, then-Senator Sherrod Brown, a Democrat from Ohio.
This year, billionaires have already donated at least $1.7 billion. Of that, $1.2 billion (69 percent) has gone to help Republican candidates, according to a report from Americans for Tax Fairness. Musk alone has pumped in at least $366 million, according to the Times. Cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence, Big Tech, and online betting companies have spent at least $294 million this cycle, according to Public Citizen. Most of that spending is on behalf of Republican candidates, along with some to aid Democratic candidates who these companies believe—perhaps with good reason—won’t regulate them aggressively.
Unless something very surprising happens, all of that spending won’t deliver the government that the rich and big corporations want. Democrats will almost certainly win the House and reduce the GOP ranks at the state level. They may win both houses on Capitol Hill and trifectas in states where a majority of Americans live.
But even if we have a blue wave, the corporate and billionaire spending will have mattered. How? First of all, this spending is almost certainly limiting Republican losses. Democratic candidates in House and Senate races are vastly outraising their GOP opponents. For example, Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico raised $60 million from July to September, compared to a haul of only $10 million for his Republican opponent, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton. Such fundraising advantages could lead to Democratic candidates running vastly more television ads and having much better get-out-the-vote operations than their Republican rivals. But conservative-leaning billionaires and corporations are pumping tens of millions of dollars into helping these Republican candidates, essentially leveling the playing field, as my colleague Emma Janssen explained in a piece Tuesday.
Billionaire spending can’t prevent a Democratic wave, but can limit its extent. Much of this billionaire and corporate spending is in traditionally red districts and states like Texas and Iowa, as polls suggest that Democrats could win this year in places they usually don’t. That kind of spending is very useful for Republican candidates. In red areas, Republican candidates don’t necessarily need to persuade swing voters or independents. They just need enough traditionally Republican voters to show up. Ads and get-out-the-vote operations can be particularly effective in mobilizing base voters. If Republicans keep control of the Senate and/or Democrats win a fairly narrow majority (220–229 seats) in the House, this billionaire and corporate spending will have been a huge asset to them.
And that’s not just an anti-Democratic story but an antidemocratic one, as well. The concept of “one person, one vote” doesn’t really exist when some individuals donate more money to campaigns than thousands or even hundreds of thousands of other Americans combined. Our campaign finance system has never been particularly democratic. But it’s more democratic for a candidate to raise $30 million from 30,000 or 300,000 people than just one.
In addition, the staggering spending by Musk and other billionaires essentially guarantees that the politicians who win with their financial backing will do their bidding in office. I am not even suggesting an explicit quid pro quo. Rather, politicians are always planning to run for reelection, so they will please a donor who spends millions of dollars to get them elected in hopes of getting such financial support in their next run.
And it’s not just Republicans who are beholden to the superrich. Democrats are accepting huge sums from the rich too. Democrats correctly argue that they shouldn’t unilaterally disarm and allow GOP candidates to get massive spending from conservative-leaning billionaires while liberal-leaning billionaires remain on the sidelines. And unlike in federal races, Democratic hopefuls in gubernatorial and state legislative contests are often being vastly outspent by their GOP rivals. So in the last few weeks, Democratic operatives and campaign operatives have urged big donors to get more involved—and they have.
While no one on the Democratic side is spending nearly as much as Musk, Michael Bloomberg (more than $19 million), Reid Hoffman (more than $12 million), and others are spending heavily to boost Democratic candidates. But those donations come with strings attached. Wealthy Democrats like Bloomberg are wary of the party embracing more populist policies, such as wealth taxes and more stringent regulation of big companies. Democratic candidates and the party overall are gun-shy about adopting progressive economic views in part because they know it will cost them financial support from big donors and therefore make it harder for them to win elections.
The most obvious case of this was in 2024, when Hoffman and other donors suggested that Kamala Harris, if elected president, commit to firing then–Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan. Khan was using her perch to fight mergers and other actions of big companies and the wealthy. It is both a democracy problem and an electoral one (voters support populist economic policies) that liberal billionaires can effectively veto progressive policy and personnel.
But their veto powers are surprisingly vast. Labor activists got a one-time 5 percent tax on the wealth of billionaires on the ballot in California. (I believe this is a solid proposal, but my colleague Timothy Noah and others are more skeptical of wealth taxes.) Whatever your views on the proposal itself, the debate over this policy shows the democracy problem caused by billionaires. With massive donations from the superrich, the opposition to the wealth tax has raised more than $330 million to convince Californians to oppose Proposition 40. The pro–wealth tax side has raised $33 million. That’s not a fair debate about the merits of a wealth tax—it’s the rich drowning out the message of their opponents.
Progressive ballot initiatives across the country nearly always have to overcome opposition from the superwealthy. And that’s distressing because ballot initiatives are often the only path to populist economic policies in red states and even blue ones. State legislators and governors often won’t advance policies that their donors don’t like. But as California is showing, the superrich can block ballot initiatives too.
The good news is that hundreds of millions of dollars from Elon Musk and other conservative billionaires probably won’t prevent an anti-Trump backlash. The bad news is that billionaires and big corporations still have a hold, and often a veto, in both parties. America can have an oligarchy or a democracy—but not both. When Democrats next have national power, they must restrict the political power of billionaires, even including the so-called liberal ones that help put them in power.
