We Name The Names Beyond Just Musk And Adelson
Even conservatives and their anti-semitic brothers who hated Louis Brandeis throughout his career and hate him now as an historical figure— he died in 1941— acknowledge he was one of the most brilliant justices to have ever served on the Supreme Court. One of his most famous and relevant quotes was “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.” We’ve used it often here and bring it up again today because of the CNN report yesterday, Elon Musk and other billionaires invest staggering sums into electing Trump. Obviously, Brandeis’ quote directly addresses a core tension we see playing out in the election. Greed-obsessed right-wing billionaires like Musk, Adelson and Uihlein— as well as Robert Mercer, Timothy Mellon, Larry Ellison, Jeffrey Yass, Peter Thiel, Harold Hamm, Stephen Schwarzman, Phil Ruffin, Kelcy Warren, John Paulson, Woody Johnson, Steve Wynn, Jeff Sprecher, Kelly Loeffler, Ike Perlmutter, Dana White, Joe Ricketts, Robert Bigelow, Linda McMahon— are pouring staggering sums of money into Trump’s campaign. Why? To help the working families they detest? Or for more selfish reasons?
Brandeis’ insight is incredibly pertinent to the situation described by CNN, his statement speaking to the inherent conflict between the democratic ideal of equal representation and the reality of concentrated wealth shaping political power. When a small group of billionaires can inject hundreds of millions of dollars into elections, it raises serious questions about the integrity of a system that is supposed to be governed by the people. Instead, the will of a few individuals with vast fortunes appears to be overpowering the collective voice of millions of voters.
In practical terms, the billions funneled into super PACs like America PAC and Preserve America enable these donors to control the narrative and potentially sway the outcome in key battleground states. Their influence doesn't just tip the scale; it sets the entire agenda, whether it’s through dominating ad time, funding voter turnout operations, or crafting the policies candidates feel compelled to support. This is precisely the scenario Brandeis warned about— a democracy in name, but one where the levers of power are pulled by a wealthy few (plutocracy).
Recently Erica Payne wrote that “When they bankroll electoral candidates to the tune of millions, billionaires claim they are merely exercising their First Amendment right to free speech. And while the Supreme Court and current law might be on their side, their political ‘largesse’ is a dangerous subversion of our democracy… [W]e are starting to see the consequences of enabling monied interests— billionaires or otherwise— to play an outsized role in shaping American politics. The notion that any one person or family can dominate our elections is antithetical to democracy. And yet, an emerging oligarchy is starting to use their extraordinary wealth to effectively decide who can run for office, to catapult their preferred candidates to success, and to lobby sitting legislators they’ve already hand-selected. How is this happening? It’s not complicated. Funding is one of the most important things— if not the most important thing— that candidates need to run a viable campaign for office. Successful campaigns today require lots of staff, television advertising, polling, political consultants, social media engagement, commercial phone banks, texting and email campaigns, direct mailing, and more— all of which require vast sums of money. And while it’s not always true that the winning candidate is also the biggest spender, there is nonetheless a strong, positive correlation between election spending and election success that cannot be ignored. In short, if a candidate is able to attract significant funding from a billionaire donor to use in their campaign, that will greatly improve their chances of success come Election Day.”
This narrative gets worse, Payne reminded her readers that “This dynamic plays an important role in determining who gets to run for office in the first place. For most people— the exception being those who are wealthy enough to self-finance— getting rubber-stamped by families like the Mellons, Griffins, and Yasses has more or less become a prerequisite for mounting viable campaigns. And this is especially the case as the bar climbs higher and higher in terms of how much money you need to spend to win elections: as billionaires spend more in backing their preferred candidates, other candidates must somehow find similar funds to compete on equal footing. Finally, after their preferred candidates win, billionaire donors enjoy outsized influence over how elected officials behave once they are in office. Donors are quite adept at supporting candidates that closely share their views, so it would make sense that, once in office, their beneficiaries support legislation or engage in other activities that are compliant with their preferences.”
A week later, she noted that “Trump has proposed a new tax plan and, just like his 2017 tax code, it’s a scam that only benefits the top 1% and corporations. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy recently released a report analyzing all of Trump’s tax proposals for a second term: extending the temporary provisions of his 2017 tax law, exempting certain types of income from taxes, reducing the corporate tax rate to 20% or 15%, repealing green energy tax credits, and imposing a new 20% tariff on imported goods. They found that, if these proposals go into effect in 2026, the top 1% of earners would receive a tax cut of $36,300, middle class earners would see a tax increase of $1,500, and low-wage workers would see a tax hike of roughly $800.”
Not everyone cares but can anyone deny that this concentration of wealth and power in elections is dangerous for democracy? When a small group— and their special interests— exert this much influence, it creates a system where politicians are more beholden to their mega-donors than to the public, a scenario that perpetuates the dominance of the wealthy in determining policy priorities, often at odds with the needs and desires of the average voter.
Two of the biggest contributors— Musk, whose latest scheme is outright vote buying, and Adelson— are dual citizens and America’s best interests are hardly front of mind for either. For example, Musk's refusal to allow Ukrainian forces to use Starlink satellites for key military operations, benefited Russia. His wealth, technological dominance, and unpredictability in geopolitics illustrate the dangers of allowing a billionaire with vast power to make unilateral decisions that affect global security. As for Miriam Adelson, her dual citizenship and unwavering support for Israel’s far-right Likud Party have long made it clear that she has ZERO loyalty to the U.S. and cares nothing about American interests. Adelson's advocacy for U.S. policies that overwhelmingly favor Israel, including $100 million contributions to Trump in exchange for recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank, illustrates her prioritization of Israeli geopolitical goals over American ones. Additionally, her op-eds reveal a hardline Zionist agenda, notably calling pro-Palestinian activists “enemies” and showing a disdain for progressive values in the U.S. Her financial backing for the always grotesquely transactional Trump and extreme Israeli policies compromise American foreign policy in favor of Likud's agenda.
The CNN report leads me to believe that by the time the election is over, just Musk and Adelson alone, will have spent well over a quarter billion dollars trying to buy the election for Trump. And the right-wing billionaires behind Trump are also spending hundreds of millions more trying to buy Congress. Adelson kicked in $19 million, Ken Griffin $27.5 million, Paul Singer $10 million, Stephen Schwarzman $9 million. If you want to help fight back, let me suggest this ActBlue page and especially Dan Osborn, the independent running ahead in Nebraska. Orborn wants to get big money out of our elections and if he’s the pivotal vote for control of the Senate, he’ll be able to do more to make that happen than anyone else in U.S. politics.
1 comentario