Trump-Musk: Can We Stop Billionaires from Buying Elections? Yes, We Can

As I write this, Elon Musk is reported to be camped out in Pennsylvania, spending who knows how much of his $200 billion+ fortune trying to help Donald Trump win the state’s electoral votes.

With even the slimmest of victory margins in Pennsylvania Trump could become the most powerful person in the world, deeply indebted to the richest person in the world, a man whose personal wealth and financial interests are hugely dependent on U.S. government actions. 

In a second Trump presidency, whose interests would take priority, the public’s or Musk’s?

The Trump-Musk Connection: How Billionaires Shape Elections

Trump also has incurred another enormous debt, to the oil industry, whose leaders he reportedly offered a blank policy check in return for a billion dollars in campaign contributions. Did big oil deliver that billion dollar gusher? We may never know.  Thanks to the Supreme Court, “dark money” has become legal and unlimited donor contributions no longer need to be publicly reported.

According to current estimates, more than $15 billion will be spent this year by the presidential campaigns, their allied groups and political parties. Only 30% or so of that amount will come from small donors, the public with the largest stake in the outcome. 

Can anything be done to cure our election system of the growing secret special interest cancer that’s distorting our common interests?

Yes, there are potential reforms, and they could be enacted fairly quickly.

Campaign Finance Reform: The Push for Public Funding

Should Democrats win control of the White House and Congress, they could revive a dormant public presidential campaign financing program that’s been on the books since 1971. From 1976 to 2008, every candidate for president, Republican and Democrat, including most primary election candidates, accepted public financing for their campaigns rather than opting for unlimited manic private fundraising.
 

The money for the public campaign financing program came from $3 voluntary contributions collected when taxpayers checked a box on their annual income tax forms. In the early days of the program nearly 30% of all taxpayers contributed. With acceptance of public funding, campaigns agreed to stay within spending limits and disclose the sources of any matching money they received.

That system worked well through the Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., Clinton, and Bush Jr. years.  They and all of their opponents ran their campaigns with public funds. But by 2008 funding failed to keep up with expenses. Accepting the fund’s public contributions and spending limits became untenable for the campaigns. Ever since, presidential campaigns have relied on private donors.

The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the floodgates for corporations, support groups and wealthy individuals to give unlimited contributions without disclosure. 

Meanwhile, the presidential public financing fund has remained on the books, largely untapped, collecting taxpayer contributions each year with few takers. Currently, the fund has more than $400 million. If Congress were to raise the check mark contribution from $3 to $15 or $20 the program would be viable again. Updating the program’s terms and increasing its funding would be easy fixes.

As in the early days of the program, candidates would buy into the program to avoid the indignities and save the time involved in personal fund-raising. Also, opting out would open non-participating candidates to selling-out charges. Their opponents would see to that.

Would our polarized public support public funding? The polls say yes. And after this year’s campaign with its blizzard of fund-raising appeals, a one-time $20 contribution would seem like a great bargain.

During my years of professional involvement in political campaigns I never met a candidate who relished spending hours every day begging for money. That’s why I think a serious push to restore public finance would have a good chance of drawing bi-partisan support.

Another Fix, Embedded in the Voting Rights Bill

Another campaign fix also is ready and waiting to be enacted. It’s called the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. Not only would this act restore voting rights protections that the Supreme Court recently took away, it provides for spending limits, disclosure and other reforms. This might be a harder sell and require a suspension of the Senate filibuster rule. Hard, but not impossible. 

In fact, after the 2020 election, during the two years Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, the John R. Lewis reform would have been enacted had just two senators, West Virginia’s Joe Manchin and Arizona’s Krysten Sinema agreed to suspend the filibuster. Neither will be returning to Congress next year.

Overturning Citizens United 

Longer term, the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling must be overturned, most likely by constitutional amendment. And there’s an active, well-funded, bi-partisan movement in the works to do just that.

You’ve likely never heard of the group “American Promise.” I hadn’t either before I attended a recent presentation of its program. Here’s what I learned. Without much publicity, American Promise already has prompted 22 state legislatures to support a constitutional amendment that restores Congress’s and the states rights to regulate campaign contributions and spending. In the current Congress, 213 members of the House and 51 senators so far have pledged support. 

To trigger the amendment process, 16 more states, 16 more U.S. senators and 74 more House members need to agree. That’s not going to happen this year or next. But the machinery for change is very well oiled and picking up bi-partisan support. 

Why should we be optimistic? Because the failure to make fundamental change in the system would be devastating to democracy. The Trump-Musk connection is a frightening preview of what future “elections” could be—a few individuals who control most of the nation’s wealth literally buying the keys to all levels of government.

Responsible leaders need to head off that future. It starts by electing more responsible leaders November 5.

Comments? Criticism? Contact Joe Rothstein at jrothstein@rothstein.net

Do you know someone who might want to subscribe to It’s Always Something? Forward it to others. It’s free.