Is Leonard Leo America's Real Public Enemy Number 1? More Than Elon Musk? More Than Señor T?

One Solution: Taxing Billionaires Out Of Existence

This morning, Mica Soellner and Melanie Zanona reported that “Democrats hold a significant fundraising advantage over Republicans. Democrats’ swamping of Republicans in the money chase is all the chatter in GOP circles in recent weeks. In the second quarter of this year, Democratic incumbents and challengers outraised their Republican opponents by an average of more than $440,000, according to the DCCC. The House Democrats’ campaign arm said Frontliners had an average cash-on-hand of $2.7 million. That’s five times more than their GOP counterparts.”

Meanwhile “The NRCC didn’t respond for a comment regarding this massive fundraising discrepancy. But there has been a bit of divide inside the House GOP conference over just how candid to be— both publicly and privately— about their money problems. On the one hand, sounding the alarm could help light a fire underneath donors and members. That was the purpose of the conference-wide call Hudson helped arrange early last month where he warned that lawmakers need to step up to the plate if they want to keep the majority. But on the other hand, there’s a desire among top Republicans to project optimism. Johnson said on a Trump campaign call Friday that House Republicans potentially could end up with a 13-seat majority if they have a good night on Nov. 5.”

Don’t get too excited. I see this every cycle and in the end right-wing billionaires step up to even the playing field for their Republican puppets in Congress and in state legislatures. The Republican candidates will have all the money they need— and more.

In fact, there was a warning in Sunday’s Financial Times that was far more salient: Conservative Activist Launches $1 Billion Crusade To ‘Crush’ Liberal America. Yeah… Leonard Leo, co-chair of the Federalist Society and the reactionary architect of the far right takeover of the Supreme Court isn’t done with America yet. Alex Rogers interviewed Leo and wrote that his next targets are corporate America and the country’s news and entertainment sectors, declaring that “the Marble Freedom Trust, was ready to confront the private sector in addition to the government. ‘We need to crush liberal dominance where it’s most insidious, so we’ll direct resources to build talent and capital formation pipelines in the areas of news and entertainment, where leftwing extremism is most evident,’ Leo told the Financial Times. ‘Expect us to increase support for organisations that call out companies and financial institutions that bend to the woke mind virus spread by regulators and NGOs, so that they have to pay a price for putting extreme leftwing ideology ahead of consumers,’ he said.”

In 2021, “Leo founded Marble, with a $1.6 billion donation from electronic device manufacturing mogul Barre Seid, to be a counterweight to what he said was “dark money” of the left. He spent about $600 million in its first three years, according to public financial disclosures. Leo said his goal was to find ‘very leveraged, impactful ways of reintroducing limited constitutional government and a civil society premised on freedom and personal responsibility and the virtues of western civilisation.’ The $1 billion money machine is now funding the conservative mission against private institutions, opposing diversity, equity and inclusion policies, climate and social concerns in investing and the ‘debanking’ of politically conservative customers, in addition to taking on the public sector.”

The non-profit is increasingly interested in launching campaigns against “woke” banks and China-friendly companies involved in everything from food production to autonomous vehicles in the US and potentially Europe. 

Leo also intends to invest in a US local media company in the next 12 months, although he has not decided which, and is building conservative coalitions through groups such as Teneo Network, a club with chapters across the country. 

He also confirmed that Marble had since 2021 helped fund organisations that launched campaigns against companies with DEI, ESG and other initiatives, including BlackRock, Vanguard, American Airlines, Coca-Cola, State Farm, Major League Baseball and Ticketmaster. 

This year, Marble aided a variety of conservative groups in their campaigns against TikTok on the grounds that it was a threat to children and US national security. President Joe Biden signed a bipartisan bill to force TikTok’s Chinese parent company to divest from the video-sharing platform.

Leo’s rise to be among the US’s most powerful conservatives has drawn scrutiny from liberal attorneys and Democratic politicians. Earlier this year, he refused to comply with a subpoena from Senate Democrats investigating undisclosed gifts to Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito revealed by ProPublica. 

In 2020, Leo joined the for-profit public advocacy firm CRC Advisors. Bloomberg has reported that an array of non-profits have paid CRC at least $69 million since Leo became its co-owner and chair. 

While Marble funds Trump-aligned advocacy groups, it is not donating money to sway the 2024 presidential election, Leo said. The non-profit is instead helping the Republican effort to end the Democratic majority in the Senate, which confirms judges and justices. 

“The political environment is more topsy-turvy and more uncertain than it’s ever been in my lifetime,” said Leo. “Political investing is not as good a bet as it used to be.”

This neo-fascist jihad against democracy illustrates the dangers posed by extreme wealth accumulation in the hands of a small elite. It underscores how vast sums of untaxed money— hoarded by billionaires and funneled into shadowy political and advocacy networks— is used to distort democracy and shift power away from ordinary citizens. What we’re seeing here is a stark imbalance in political power, where billionaires can disproportionately influence the direction of national policy and culture, sidelining the voices of the majority. A democratic society is supposed to function on the principle of “one person, one vote,” but when billionaires can spend vast amounts to fund media campaigns, pack the courts and manipulate corporate governance, they undermine democratic principles, again, revealing how extreme concentrations of wealth, unchecked by taxation, directly challenge the democratic process by granting political power based on money rather than merit or the public interest.

The rise of an operation like Leo’s Marble Freedom Trust shows how billionaires are able to channel their wealth into opaque, tax-exempt “non-profits” to fund political campaigns and advocacy without public scrutiny. This dark money allows wealthy criminal types to fund deeply partisan, even extremist causes without being held accountable by voters. It highlights how existing tax structures allow the ultra-wealthy to use “charitable” foundations and political advocacy groups as vehicles for influencing policy, all while shielding their wealth from taxation. A more equitable tax system would address this by eliminating billionaires altogether while creating greater transparency in political contributions and eliminating the ability of the super-rich to use charitable tax exemptions to advance political goals. It’s what worries me about a centrist incrementalist like Kamala; we need her to beat Trump, but what happens after that? A fairer tax system would redistribute wealth more equitably, ensuring that the wealthiest who benefit the most from public goods— such as infrastructure, education, and the legal system— pay their fair share to support society. A more progressive tax system would fund social programs, healthcare, education, and other public services that benefit the broader population, thereby reducing the wealth gap and curbing the political influence of the ultra-wealthy. A wealth tax would help prevent the accumulation of money that is used to disproportionately influence politics and policy. Taxing the extreme wealth held by figures like Seid or organizations like the Marble Freedom Trust would diminish their ability to distort democratic processes.

Let’s not kid ourselves; a few ultra-wealthy individuals and organizations wield enormous power over political, legal and cultural institutions. Without serious reforms— not the 28% capital gains tax Kamala is proposing— billionaires will continue to use their wealth to cement their influence, reinforcing structures that perpetuate inequality and limit democratic participation. The accumulation of vast wealth by billionaires like those backing Leonard Leo’s campaign shows the urgent need for a more progressive tax system that targets extreme wealth, imposes much higher taxes on corporations and the very wealthy, eliminates special interest loopholes and ensures transparency in political spending. The alternative is a further entrenchment of inequality in opposition to social progress.

Leo’s latest move towards reshaping corporate America and the media landscape represents a concerted effort to shift the private sector’s power toward reactionary objectives. His language frames corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion  initiatives as a “woke mind virus,” pushing to dismantle any progress made in addressing systemic inequalities. This represents a reversal of years of work toward social and economic justice within corporate governance. By funding campaigns to pressure companies to abandon DEI and ESG (environmental, social, governance) policies, Leo and his cronies are aiming to weaken corporate accountability to both employees and society. His plans to invest in local media and entertainment sectors threaten to further polarize the national discourse. Local news is a critical source of information, especially in smaller communities, and his intention to build conservative pipelines in this space risks promoting even more one-sided, ideologically-driven narratives, echoing efforts by right-wing media giants like Sinclair Broadcasting, which have infused local news with conservative talking points. 

Let’s not lose track of the fact that Leo's broader campaign— rooted in “reintroducing limited constitutional government” and a “civil society premised on freedom”— translates into a dismantling of federal regulations that protect workers, marginalized communities and the environment. His advocacy of “personal responsibility” serves as coded language for reducing the government’s role in areas like welfare, healthcare and labor rights, which would disproportionately harm vulnerable populations.