Politicians For Sale... Government For Sale

Billionaire Should Not Exist In Democracies

You’ve probably read by now that South African fascist and government-funded billionaire Elon Musk said he’ll commit $45 million/month to a freshly-minted SuperPAC created to get Trump back into the White House, the anodyne-sounding “America PAC.” Until yesterday, it was primarily funded by crypto-currency criminals and anti-Climate extremists. Musk’s unprecedented spending— beginning this month— reminded me of the robber barons who bought the White House for William McKinley in 1896. 

A couple of months ago, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump and Musk have discussed an important role for Musk, who is severely mentally unbalanced and suffering from Aspergers, in a second Trump administration. Trump and McKinley are hardly the only candidates whose campaign have been underwritten by billionaires who were looking out for tgehir own interests, not the country’s but Musk’s contributions to Trump will likely dwarf previous contributions by individual ultra-wealthy donors, underscoring the increasing influence of wealthy individuals in US politics, particularly through Super PACs, which, thanks to the far right Supreme Court, can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money to support candidates and causes.

McKinley was very much run by a wealthy crooked industrialist, Mark Hanna, who donated himself and engineered an immense flow of money for the reactionary McKinley from the nation’s richest— and most corrupt— robber barons, particularly John Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie, ’til then unprecedented amounts of money. McKinley's campaigns were notable for the significant financial contributions from large corporations and super-wealthy individuals. It was critical in countering the populist campaign of William Jennings Bryan (D), who was backed by smaller donors and farmers. The backing McKinley got showcased the the power of wealthy donors in shaping political outcomes— and policy. 

In 1896, McKinley's campaign is estimated to have raised about $3.5 to $7 million, a record sum at the time. Adjusted for inflation, this amount ranges approximately from $110 million to $220 million in 2023 dollars, the bulk of which came from wealthy industrialists and large corporations. As best I can tell, in the 2016 election, Trump’s campaign and supporting Super PACs raised and spent around $600 million. For the 2020 election, this amount nearly doubled. While McKinley's campaign set a record for its time, Trump's campaign funds were significantly higher in absolute terms and comparable considering the economic growth and inflation over the century.

The substantial financial contributions from the ultra-wealthy, whether in the era of robber barons like Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller or modern robber barons like Musk, represent a profound and troubling distortion of democracy and is why we’ll always emphasizing that billionaires— incompatible with democracy— just should be taxed out of existence.. Their immense political contributions serve to amplify the voices and interests of a small, elite segment of society at the expense of the broader public. The vast sums of money poured into political campaigns by billionaires skew the democratic process, allowing the wealthy to exert disproportionate  and incalculable influence over elections and policy decisions, totally undermining the principle of equal representation and turning elections into contests dominated by financial power rather than public interest.

Needless to say, ultra-wealthy donors expect favorable policies in return for their financial support. This quid pro quo relationship can lead to legislation and policies that prioritizes the interests of the rich, such as tax cuts for the wealthy, deregulation of industries, and weakened labor protections, at the expense of the general population. After the tens of millions of dollars poured into the campaign coffers of Trump by Israeli whore Miriam Adelson, does anyone think anyone is the Trump orbit will ever do anything to upend the Likud vision of Palestine?

There’s no way this is going to take any DWT reader by surprise but I can’t overemphasize that the pervasive influence of money in politics drives public cynicism and distrust in government. When citizens perceive that politicians are bought and paid for by billionaires, faith in democratic institutions and processes deteriorates, leading to disengagement and apathy among voters. Meanwhile, in return for financing their political careers, billionaires secure economic policies that benefit their interests. The ultra-wealthy gain direct access to political power. They can influence legislative agendas, secure appointments of sympathetic officials, and shape public policy to align with their interests, effectively ensuring that the government serves their needs, particularly the protection of wealth, over those of the general public. By ensuring that candidates who favor neoliberal, pro-business policies are elected, billionaires stave off reforms that might redistribute wealth or increase corporate accountability, exacerbating economic inequality. When tax cuts benefit the rich disproportionately, and social services are underfunded, the gap between the wealthy and the rest of society widens, leading to increased poverty, reduced social mobility, greater social unrest and anger. As government priorities shift to serve the interests of the wealthy, public services— healthcare, education, infrastructure— suffer. Generally, budget cuts and privatization efforts result in reduced access to quality services for the average citizen. Example— wealthy donors often push for deregulation that benefits their industries but harms the environment, resulting in weaker environmental protections, increased pollution and unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, threatening public health and future generations.

The long and short of it is that the outsized influence of billionaires in the political realm represents a grave threat to democratic principles and social justice. While the wealthy reap enormous benefits— including economic advantages and political power— the public faces the erosion of democratic integrity, increased inequality and diminished public services.

Like I said, McKinley and Trump are far from the only reactionaries who have benefited from this perversion of electoral politics. Let’s look at the elections from 1920 through 1932, three of the most disastrous presidents in American history— Warren G. Harding (who never spent a day in prison), Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. In the 1920 presidential election Harding, funded by the wealthy special interests, faced off against fellow Ohioan, James Cox (with FDR as his running mate). Turnout was dismal and Harding won a landslide, 60.4% to 34.1%, Cox winning just the Solid South states that were still angry at Republicans for Lincoln freeing the slaves.

Harry Daugherty, who later became Harding's Attorney General, was instrumental in selling the campaign to wealthy special interests, ensuring Harding's nomination and eventual election. The most infamous scandal ’til Watergate, Teapot Dome, was all about the Harding administration secretly leasing federal oil reserves ton private companies— his campaign donors— at Teapot Dome, Wyoming, without competitive bidding. Secretary of the Interior Albert Fall accepted bribes on behalf of the administration from oil executives, highlighting the corrupt entanglement between the Harding administration and wealthy businessmen.

Much of the country was relieved when Harding died— until they realized his crooked VP, Calvin Coolidge would become president. The 2022 turnout was even lower than the 1920 turnout, as Coolidge faced conservative Democrat John Davis. Coolidge, already known for his laissez-faire economic policies, attracted massive support from Big Business. Much like all Republicans, his administration favored tax cuts for the wealthy and minimal regulation, aligning closely with the interests of industrial magnates and financiers. The top marginal income tax rate plummeted from from 58% to 25%. For the very richest Americans, a heyday for the concentration of wealth and for grotesque economic disparities. At the same time, Coolidge and his allies rolled-back every regulation they could find, leading directly to practices that prioritized profits over workers' rights and safety and environmental concerns.

In 1928, Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover touched conservative Democrat Al Smith, 58.2% to 40.8%, with Hoover, a wealthy businessman himself, campaigning as a champion of the business community. He secured financial backing from those who expected his policies to favor economic growth and stability. Instead they got the stock market crash and Great Depression, which he responded to by… not responding.

The presidencies of Harding, Coolidge and Hoover are textbook cases of how the influence of the wealthy ultimately leads to policies that prioritize the interests of the elite at the expense of the broader public. The 3 administrations' pro-business stances, tax cuts for the rich, and deregulatory approaches gave the country economic inequality, eye-popping corruption and significant social and economic crises. In 1932, the public took revenge on the Republicans by seeing to it that FDR ousted Hoover 57.4% to 39.6%, winning all but 6 states— and 472 electoral votes to 59.

FDR delivered for the country— not for the special interests— while the Republicans shrieked “socialism” and dug in their heals. Roosevelt won again in 1936, in 1940 and in 1944. Funny how the DemocratParty establishment has utterly forgotten the lessons they should have learned from Roosevelt— and are on the verge of losing every branch of government to, as hard as it is to fathom, Donald Trump, an unreconstructed fascist.

Congressional candidate Jerrad Christian is running for a seat includes a lot of rural MAGA territory in eastern and central Ohio where Vance found a great deal of support. Vance has insisted that “Social Security and Medicare are ‘the biggest roadblocks to real fiscal sanity.’ He is an opportunist, a terrible Senator and a proponent of the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025. He has said in an interview that he believes women should stay in violent marriages— for the kids. Vance claims he's fighting a class war, but his record suggests he's not on our side. When he does intervene, he mostly sides with elites. Unlike JD, I did grow up in Appalachia. I know what it's like to go without and I want to help rebuild our home. He has zero constituent services in Ohio and has only used the Senate seat to try to build a career where he holds more power. If Vance is given more power, the nation should be prepared to be as screwed over as Ohio has been.”

Please consider contributing to Christian’s campaign on this page.