Big Musk-Like Money Is Dominating Politics: Patricia Lopez

Big money has never been as big nor as bold as it has been in the 2024 presidential election, and the failure to rein it in could further solidify the already overwhelming influence the super-wealthy wield over our political system.

This election cycle is expected to be the most expensive in history, with nearly $16 billion spent on the presidential and congressional races. Outside spending alone is projected to top $5 billion — far more than the $1.6 billion outside groups spent in 2020.

The problem of megadonors playing an outsized role in elections was compounded earlier this year when the Federal Election Commission lifted the longtime ban against candidates coordinating with outside groups such as super PACs, which can raise and spend unlimited money.

The ban wasn’t much to begin with, but it did provide something of a check against candidates not only tapping into, but maintaining control over outside money spent on their behalf. Now, candidates can freely collaborate with super PACs on expenses such as ground game operations, including door-knocking, messaging, voter lists, office space, and more.

The change has been a boon for Donald Trump, who has been outpaced in small donations by Vice President Kamala Harris. Conservative activist Charlie Kirk and his Turning Point Action group, for example, have said they intend to spend $108 million on voter turnout in Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan — states where President Joe Biden beat Trump in 2020.

Trump depends heavily on donations from billionaires, which comprise about a third of his fundraising capital. This gives a small cadre of ultra-wealthy backers potentially extraordinary influence over the former president.

While Harris has more billionaire donors than Trump, her campaign is far less reliant on them. These megadonors make up only 6% of her total fundraising. (Michael R. Bloomberg, founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, is one of Harris’ donors.)

Election watchdogs say that as Trump courts these big donors, they see signs that he may be promising them regulatory and other policy changes in exchange.

“Trump was the first transactional president,” said Scott Reed, a longtime GOP consultant and former strategist for the US Chamber of Commerce. “He’s now taken it to a new level.”

The dress rehearsal for what to expect this cycle came in 2017 when Politico reported Trump “quietly appointed a number of his richest friends and allies to unpaid jobs of importance, where their responsibilities are blurry, but their power could prove immense.”

This time, Trump has the world’s richest man by his side. Billionaire investor and businessman Elon Musk has donated at least $132 million to Trump and his allies and appears to consider himself something of a partner with the former president. Musk has inserted himself into the presidential race in ways unprecedented for a donor.

Musk created the pro-Trump America PAC, to which Trump has outsourced much of his ground game. He accompanies Trump at his rallies, often hawking his own all-black “Dark MAGA” caps.

He also devised a novel — and possibly illegal — lottery through his super PAC, offering $1 million every day until Nov. 5 to a registered voter willing to sign a petition supporting the Constitution. To be eligible to win, entrants must share personal identifying information like addresses and phone numbers.

The giveaway has drawn warnings from the Justice Department that Musk may be violating federal law and a lawsuit from the Philadelphia District Attorney, who has accused him of staging an illegal lottery in an attempt to influence the election. A judge on Thursday put the suit on hold while a federal court decides whether to take it up, but the decision is unlikely to happen before Tuesday’s election.

Paying someone to register to vote is illegal, and the “lottery” is only available in the seven battleground states. Several of the winners have appeared in videos supporting Trump.

Trump has said he intends to create a new, non-cabinet position of “secretary of cost-cutting” for Musk if he’s returned to the White House. Musk would be given wide latitude over budget matters and has already announced that he would cut $2 trillion from the budget — a move he acknowledges could upend the US economy. The proposal hasn’t drawn a peep of opposition from Trump.

In addition to Musk, Trump has wooed leaders in various industries, including vaping, crypto, and oil. He’s been unusually frank about what many might describe as quid pro quo relationships with these individuals.

In April, Trump hosted a dinner for energy and oil industry executives and lobbyists, where he followed a string of promises with a breathtaking request: The guests should donate $1 billion to his campaign.

“It’s entertainment and coercion — the carrot and the stick,” said Walter Shaub, former director of the US Office of Government Ethics. “He has been making clear through his actions that any industries that support him stand to be rewarded and any that oppose him stand to be punished.

In May, Politico reported that oil industry executives were drafting executive orders for Trump to sign.

Trump once called cryptocurrency “a scam” because it competed against the dollar. That was in 2021. By July, he was headlining the industry’s conference in Nashville, promising that the US would be “the crypto capital of the planet and the Bitcoin superpower of the world.” Since June, the crypto industry has given $7.5 million to a pro-Trump PAC. Coinbase and Ripple emerged as power players in this election, donating $50 million apiece to key House and Senate races, while the industry gave nearly $120 million overall.

Outside money and its mushrooming influence threaten to soon become the dominant force in US politics, eclipsing the voices of ordinary Americans. The wealthy have as much right as anyone to participate in the political process. But allowing unlimited amounts of cash coupled with an amoral, transactional candidate makes for an unhealthy democracy.