Get Big Money Out of Politics, or Risk Having Another Elon Musk

The experiment of letting a billionaire donor act on behalf of the executive branch of US government has gone badly and must not be repeated.

In the years since the US Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which struck down limits on corporate spending in political campaigns, Elon Musk is the starkest example of a systemic problem: special interests drowning out the voices of voters by spending incredible amounts of money to influence the political process.

The messy fashion in which Musk has ended his time as a key figure in the Trump White House has been the talk of the political world. The salacious back-and-forth between Musk and President Donald Trump included a crude exchange about Musk claiming credit for Trump’s election win (though Musk later expressed regret for lashing out).

In demanding the US president show him more gratitude for his political spending, Musk confirmed what had long been obvious: He influenced the election by spending hundreds of millions of dollars in support of Trump and Republicans. Nor is it debatable that Trump rewarded Musk’s largess with months of unprecedented power over the innermost workings of our government.

As the campaign finance experts at my organization, Campaign Legal Center, wrote about Musk and other Trump supporters in a report released earlier this year: “Never before in modern American history have a handful of wealthy elites exerted such unabashed influence over who serves in government and whom government serves.”

We find ourselves in this situation for many reasons.

The freedom to flood the political zone with cash is due primarily to Supreme Court rulings, including Buckley v. Valeo in 1976 and Citizens United in 2010, as well as the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit’s 2010 decision in SpeechNow.org v. FEC, which sprang directly from Citizens United. These rulings treated political money as “speech,” gave corporations the same right to spend on elections as voters, and permitted unlimited corporate campaign spending as long as it was “independent” from candidates.

Congress has done nothing for more than 20 years to address campaign finance issues despite overwhelming public support for reform. Even worse, in the years since Citizens United, the FEC—which is responsible for enforcing campaign finance laws—has enabled previously unthinkable levels of lawlessness.

A prime example from the last election cycle was a move by four members of the FEC to clear the way for candidates to coordinate with super PACs. Trump and Musk took advantage of this change on a massive scale.

Preventing such billionaires from dominating the political process in the future requires sustained action across many fronts. Structural reforms at the FEC would be a good place to start, including a complete overhaul of the selection process for FEC commissioners.

Those commissioners must be dedicated to promoting transparency and fighting corruption by enforcing existing laws and advancing new regulations under the FEC’s authority. The agency’s strictly nonpartisan staff should also be given more autonomy to investigate apparent violations of the law.

Congress can make the FEC more effective by requiring a majority FEC vote to shut down an investigation at the preliminary stages of the process—a tie vote is all that is needed to bring things to a halt under current law. And the statute of limitations for pursuing civil and criminal enforcement of federal campaign finance laws should be extended from five to 10 years.

Congress has previously considered, and now should pass, legislation expanding the situations in which an “independent” group (such as a super PAC) is subject to limits on the money it can collect from billionaires to spend on elections. This change would subject a huge portion of election spending to contribution limits and other restrictions.

States can also play an important role in the fight to stem the influence of wealthy special interests. More states and localities should adopt public financing systems that empower everyday voters and dilute the influence of big political spenders. Models with a track record of success include “democracy dollars” programs that enable all voters to financially support the candidate of their choice, and programs that provide matching funds for candidates raising money through small-dollar donations.

In the long term, we need structural changes that redefine the role of money in our political system. This could include a constitutional amendment or a sustained effort that leads a future Supreme Court majority to reject the idea that corporations have constitutional rights to drown out the voices of US voters.

The example of a billionaire political donor running rampant through our government for nearly six months makes it painfully obvious that we must act now to end big money’s control over candidates and elections.

This article does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg Industry Group, Inc., the publisher of Bloomberg Law and Bloomberg Tax, or its owners.

Author Information

Adav Noti is the executive director of Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to solving the wide range of challenges facing American democracy.

Write for Us: Author Guidelines