The rich are controlling our government

Ok but what can we do about it?

In last week’s essay, I discussed how politicians have become “audience captured” by their parties, and this is a big problem. But politicians are also “donor captured” by those who contribute to their campaigns, and this is an even bigger one.

It’s pretty simple: Imagine you are extraordinarily wealthy but your wealth depends on one thing: That government contract that is renewed every year, the regulatory line item that ignores your company’s carbon emissions, that tax policy that ensures your net worth doesn’t drop by several hundred million.

In the US, a wealthy person or organization can donate unlimitedly to a politician’s campaign and ensure a return on their “investments,” either because a candidate already backs policies that will benefit them, or because they will in exchange for their dollars. Presidents and congress members can easily slide donors’ interests into appropriations bills as minor line items.

OpenSecrets tracks the money donated to political campaigns, PACs, SuperPacs, Careys (a sort of combination of PACs and SuperPacs), and nonprofits supporting various parties and candidates—I highly recommend tooling around in there and seeing where the money is coming from.

Nonprofits do not have to disclose who donated to them publicly allowing individuals and organizations to contribute anonymously, and this is called “dark money.” In 2024, more than $2 billion in dark money was contributed to presidential campaigns, with at least $9.1 million in favor of the Republicans and $2 million in favor of the Democrats. Campaigns, PACs, SuperPacs, and Careys, however, have to disclose what individuals and organizations contributed to them, so we know exactly where the money is coming from.

Here’s the list of the largest contributors to Donald Trump in 2024:

Source

Here’s the list of the largest contributors to Kamala Harris in 2024:

Source

We can’t know what kind of deals were made behind closed doors, but we can guess based on their interests. On Trump’s side, government contractors like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, Building America’s Future, ABC Supply, and Standard Industries might benefit from deregulation of their industries and favorable government contracts. Investors like Timothy Mellon, Andreessen Horowitz, Hendricks Holding Co., and Elliott Management might expect deregulation of the industries in their portfolios which would see their investments increase. Wall Street and financial groups like Cantor Fitzgerald might be motivated by financial gains and incentives. And companies like Southern Waste Systems, Energy Transfer LP, and Crownquest Operating might be interested in relaxed environmental protections or policies that favor oil and gas.

On Harris’ side, pro-social organizations like Future Forward, American Bridge 21st Century, League of Conservation Voters, Evidence For Impact, Environmental Defense Fund, Climate Power, Bright Future Fund, NextGen Climate Action, and Democracy PAC are philanthropic organizations who hope to advance social policies related to economic equality, climate action and renewable energy investment, educational opportunity, healthcare reform, and social justice. Tech and venture capital firms like Alphabet Inc. (Google), Asana, Greylock Partners, Euclidean Capital, and Sequoia Capital might benefit from tech sector investment and public-private partnerships, as well as skilled immigration policies that could further fuel their growth. Blockchain company Ripple might be interested in favorable cryptocurrency regulations, and worker organizations like Laborers Union might seek protection against competing interests. Educational organizations like the University of California probably expect higher education funding, research grants, and student loan reforms.

Importantly: Both sides feature a lot of very wealthy people and organizations, making it highly likely that our government will always favor their interests rather than the interests of the American people at large. The parties themselves are effectively just a pool of wealthy donors. In 2024, the Republican National Committee was funded by JPMorgan and American Financial Group. The Democratic National Committee (DNC) was funded by Microsoft and Alphabet (Google). Sequoia Capital contributed to both the RNC ($1.3 million) and Kamala Harris’ campaign ($8.8 million), making sure their interests were represented no matter which candidate reaches office.

This is why many believe that America is no longer a democracy, but an oligarchy puppeted by wealthy individuals and organizations who will always fix the economy and our tax policies in their favor. Elite donors function like kingmakers, funding candidates during primary campaigns and making introductions that ensure that only those aligned with their interests make it to general elections. By the time a candidate makes it onto a ballot, they are already sufficiently donor-captured. And by the time American citizens vote on them, we are choosing between two candidates who both represent elite interests more than American interests. When those candidates finally make it into office, their wealthy donors have a lot of power over the policies that get put into place and are even appointed to positions of power.

This is all legal thanks to Supreme Court rulings like Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) that protect donations to political campaigns as a form of free speech and allow corporations to participate unlimitedly. In this way, the rich have much more freedom of speech than the rest of us, and companies have much more of a say than the vast majority of us just work for them. Our Supreme Court protected their vote more than ours.

But I don’t want to keep expounding on the problem here because most people are very aware of it. The question is: What can we do about it?

We have two options: We can overturn Citizens United by amending the constitution to limit (or eradicate) company spending in our elections, and this is the goal of organizations like American Promise. The problem here is that an amendment would need to be passed by two-thirds of our sitting Congress and then ratified by 38 states, and what active administration would limit the donations they can receive from wealthy donors? To get to where they are, they are already representing many wealthy donors, none of whom want to lose their influence in American politics. It’s in every politician’s best interest to keep the donor system in place.

That brings us to our second option: We displace big-money candidates with an independently funded grassroots movement outside the party system. Several politicians have attempted this route. Barack Obama, for one, was a staunch opponent of the Citizens United case back then and targeted grassroots donations over traditional funding—donations under $200 contributed 44.98% of his 2008 funding. (For comparison, Harris followed a similar strategy with 42.33% of her 2024 contributions coming from donations under $200, Trump had only 28.66%.) We’ve seen similar grassroots movements take root since then. Bernie Sanders raised 57.70% of the $229.0 million he raised in 2016 from contributions less than $200, an absolute tidal wave of support from everyday American voters who showed up for a brand of government that worked in their best interests, rather than the elites.

Unfortunately, even politicians with good intentions can’t compete with large donors, and both candidates eventually succumbed to the system. Obama needed money for reelection, and donor interests pushed Sanders out in favor of Biden. We can’t keep showing up in grassroots support of individual candidates, we need to show up for every candidate who represents the interests of everyday Americans. We need to build a funding machine that funds independent candidates with grassroots dollars. There can be no doubt in my mind that these are the kinds of interests our politicians should be beholden to, not the elites who spend millions to outvote us.

We need an alternative to the RNC or DNC that is not funded by right elites or left elites. We need a middle Independent National Committee (or INC) that competes with those mega institutions but is funded by and run by us—that puts forward candidates who are not bought by wealthy individuals and organizations but are beholden only to public funding matched by small donations from all of us.

A political party that answers to the American people, not the rich.

But whether we can achieve that or not is the focus of my next essay.

Thanks for reading,

Elle Griffin