When will big money’s corruption of democracy become so obnoxious people will find it intolerable?
Perhaps a couple of troubling “hypothetical” examples will do the trick. Let’s pretend, as absurd as it sounds, that an American citizen, the wealthiest person in the world, happens to also be a rabid conspiracy theorist and, frankly, a bit of a political nutcase. And let’s further hypothetically pretend this person decides that by throwing enough of his money around he, together with other far-right billionaires, can effectively turn America into a plutocrat’s Shangri-La.
Unfortunately, this Shangri-La will be run by an authoritarian leader who throws his political opponents into jail, reverses environmental regulations while all but embracing climate change, subverts the Constitution, makes the ridiculously wealthy even more ridiculously wealthy, finishes the job of stuffing the federal courts with ultra-right political hacks, and so much more. To accomplish this, he will join with other ultra-right billionaires in opening his checkbook to help propel former U.S. President Donald Trump back into the White House. He is doing this by way of his own pro-Trump PAC. (He now denies making a $45-million-a-month commitment).
The combination of power and money easily grows into greater power and greater money, and both can continue to grow until they become unbreakable.
Or how about when another group of wealthy individuals—admittedly less rich, less nutty, and less evil in a Lex Luthor sense—decide to publicly join together to put pressure on the incumbent Democratic president to get out of the race by withholding campaign contributions? Now, to be hypothetically fair to this hypothetical group, unlike the Lex Luthor wannabe, most of these folks’ hearts are largely in the right place. But, leaving aside whether asking President Joe Biden to withdraw was politically wise, does it bother anyone that they felt so free to try to dictate to the broader electorate who should run for president? Is that a privilege we really want to cede to the wealthy?
But if we don’t want either of these things, where’s the public outrage?
Do we as a nation really believe the fact someone inherits a fortune, or makes a fortune through stock manipulation, creates a hot new internet startup, makes popular movies, or even builds a fortune through wise business practices means that person is wiser and more knowledgeable than everyone else about... well, everything?
Think how much more power Elon Musk (the unnamed billionaire/Lex Luthor imitator mentioned above, of course) has to impact government policy on issues such as climate change, education policy, and economic policy and taxation than the most talented experts in these fields?
It is tempting to think Elon Musk’s motive in at least claiming to intend to invest substantial funds in politics is purely for the fun of making a splash. What’s a few hundred million dollars to a guy worth around $200 billion? His actual political spending probably works out to a lower percentage of his annual income than many people spend on golf or bowling. This sort of pure joy in projection of power could also explain why he overpaid $40 billion dollars for Twitter only to then destroy much of its value by turning it into a swamp increasingly filled with far-right lunatics. He gets to play the King of Twitter (yeah, I know, X), or if you prefer, mayor of Crazyville, leaving him free, whenever he pleases, to share his political nonsense with millions of readers. But, of course, there is almost certainly more at play in his political investments than fun and games. Follow the money, as they say. Donald Trump’s election would save Elon Musk billions of dollars through tax and regulation changes. It must also never be forgotten that much of Musk’s profits come from the federal government. What’s a few dollars in contributions compared to all that?
If we truly want to preserve democracy for the long-term this has to change. True, the immediate threat is Donald Trump, but even if he loses, American democracy is far from safe. The growing power of the small group of far-right-American oligarchs is slowly grinding our democratic institutions into dust. Money from these economic grandees, and their predecessors going back decades, has financed right-wing organizations, advocacy groups, political campaigns, media sources, think tanks, and more.
Their money built the Federalist Society, and with the help of Republican presidents and senators has also created the right-wing Supreme Court majority. This in turn led to the court’s constitutional sanctification of money in politics with Citizens United. Thanks to these wealthy conservatives’ money, and the court that money helped to buy, it is now constitutionally established that money in politics is speech, subject to protection under the First Amendment. Personal liberties of actual human beings haven’t always done that well before the court, but the power of money, in all its glory, always wins. To the court’s majority nothing smells as sweet as the stench of money in politics.
With only the fewest of exceptions, election to political office requires this money—and in increasingly large piles. And with economic inequality growing like pancreatic cancer, big money is increasingly concentrated in relatively few hands. Ambitious politicians know better than to get on the wrong side of this group of wealthy donors. Small donors are important, but support from those with substantial assets remains critical to most candidates for major office and increasingly for minor offices as well.
This is true for the left as well as the right. It’s hard not to think this has something to do with the fact liberalism in recent decades has been so closely associated with social, rather than economic, issues—abortion rights are very important and a major focus as opposed to union rights, also very important, but less of a focus. Democrats are, of course, much better than Republicans on union rights, and got even better under Biden, but economic inequality has continued to grow during Democratic as well as Republican administrations. And as this inequality grows stronger, democracy grows weaker. The combination of power and money easily grows into greater power and greater money, and both can continue to grow until they become unbreakable.
I wrote a novel a few years ago titled, The Patriot’s Grill. It was anything but a best seller, but its topic, a recounting of a future post-democratic America, is relevant here. One sentence in particular: “The truth is no one took freedom from us. In the end, we just gave it away.”
I guess that is the ultimate question. Are we prepared to work to save our democracy, first, by defeating Donald Trump, then, second, by struggling to build a fairer and with it more democratic nation, or in the end, will we end up just giving it away?
