Elon Musk gave $5 million to Donald Trump’s super PAC during a dramatic and bitter falling out with the president, new filings show.
The donation to MAGA Inc. was made a month after Musk said he had “done enough” political spending, and he also gave $10 million that same day to help Republicans keep control of Congress.
The contributions came weeks into Musk’s public feud with Trump, as the tech billionaire was slamming Republicans for voting for the megabill that he argued would blow up the deficit. Still, the SpaceX CEO donated $5 million each to the Congressional Leadership Fund, the Senate Leadership Fund and MAGA Inc. on June 27, according to the groups’ filings with the Federal Election Commission on Thursday. Those are the top super PACs supporting the House and Senate Republicans and the Trump political operation.
The next week, the world’s richest man said he would start his own political party.
Musk, who spent $290 million of his own money to boost Trump and other Republicans last year, led the cost-cutting efforts of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency in the first few months of the Trump administration. When he left that role in May, he also suggested he was done with political giving for the time being: “If I see a reason to do political spending in the future, I will do it. I don’t currently see a reason,” he said at the Qatar Economic Forum.
The $5 million donation to the Trump-linked super PAC MAGA Inc. came weeks after Musk had torched Trump on social media, first over policy differences surrounding the president’s megabill, but also in escalating personal attacks. Musk later deleted some posts, but resumed his criticism of Trump, including his administration’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files, in July….
Category Archives: campaign finance
“Trump, Term-Limited, Amasses $200 Million War Chest for Political Ambitions”
President Trump’s super PAC is sitting on about $200 million that it can spend against his rivals, giving a term-limited president a never-before-seen amount of power in his party’s finances and future.
In the first half of 2025, Mr. Trump’s group, MAGA Inc., collected about $177 million from the likes of Elon Musk, Mr. Trump’s erstwhile ally, the TikTok investor Jeffrey Yass and the Silicon Valley executives Ben Horowitz and Marc Andreessen, according to a filing on Thursday with the Federal Election Commission.
Mr. Trump has been able to capitalize on a thirst from corporate America to get into his good graces. He held a half-dozen fund-raisers for his super PAC this year with tickets costing seven figures a seat. At the dinners, often held at one of Mr. Trump’s properties, executives and lobbyists had the chance to tell the president about their businesses.
The super PAC’s exact cash on hand is $196.1 million, according to the filing.
There is no precedent for politicians so aggressively raising money for their own entities when they do not have a campaign to use it for. In the first half of 2013, a similar political group supporting a term-limited Barack Obama, Priorities USA, raised just $356,000. As of that June, it held $3.4 million, less than 2 percent of the cash on hand of Mr. Trump’s super PAC.
The money raised by MAGA Inc. during the first six months of the year is almost twice the amount collected by the Republican National Committee, which is subject to contribution limits. Mr. Yass donated $16 million to the super PAC and Mr. Horowitz and Mr. Andreessen combined to donate an additional $11 million. His group also collected several seven-figure contributions from crypto companies, an industry that Mr. Trump has embraced, and $5 million from a crypto entity co-founded by the OpenAI chief Sam Altman.
That Mr. Trump is raising so much money for his group has confounded some Republicans.
Some of Mr. Trump’s most loyal supporters have argued that he should try to run for a third term, despite it being unconstitutional. Mr. Trump’s aides have argued that he would be foolish not to accept money that is essentially for the taking, and that the assets can be used to target Mr. Trump’s rivals, beginning with Representative Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican whom MAGA Inc. is attacking. Mr. Massie broke with Mr. Trump on the president’s decision to bomb Iran and on his domestic bill.
With a $200 million war chest, MAGA Inc. figures to be a big part of Republican primaries, making Mr. Trump’s endorsements in those races all the more important. The money is sure to be spent on advertising to back Mr. Trump’s endorsed candidates….
“Old money: Campaign finance and gerontocracy in the United States”
Adam Bonica and Jacob Grumbach have written this article for the Journal of Public Economics. Here is the abstract:
Politicians in the United States rank among the oldest globally. This study examines how money in politics contributes to age inequality in political representation. Using record-linkage to construct a novel data set combining the ages of voters, donors, and candidates, we find that the median dollar in US elections comes from a 66-year-old — significantly older than the median voter, candidate, or elected official. Results from within-district and within-donor analyses confirm that age proximity with candidates increases contributions on the extensive and intensive margins. Finally, we simulate candidate fundraising by age under a hypothetical campaign finance voucher policy.
“[County Executive] Sam Page indicted on election and theft charges over St. Louis County proposition mailer”
STLPR reports:
A St. Louis County grand jury on Wednesday indicted County Executive Sam Page on charges involving the use of public money to campaign against Proposition B ahead of the April election.
The measure would have allowed the St. Louis County Council to fire certain department heads with five of seven votes. Six of the council’s seven members are generally combative with Page.
The county sent out a mailer in the weeks leading up to the election outlining consequences of the issue. The front of the mailer listed groups that opposed Proposition B and included wording from a court ruling ordering a change in the language appearing on the ballot. The “paid for” line said St. Louis County.
…
State law forbids any elected official to spend public funds to campaign for or against a ballot measure. Page faces two misdemeanor election offenses and two counts of felony theft “by deceit” over the spending of county money.
Page has said the mailer was informational only and did not advocate a position.
“PG investigation: How dark money flooded the race for Pittsburgh mayor”
With just weeks left in a grueling Democratic primary election that could shape Pittsburgh’s future, mayoral challenger Corey O’Connor’s dominant lead was slipping away as the incumbent seized the momentum.With help from progressive supporters, Mayor Ed Gainey ramped up his campaign.
He launched a high-profile tour that showcased affordable housing projects carried out during his administration that had become a defining issue in the historic race.
His supporters also began leveling accusations of racism against Mr. O’Connor after an outside group supporting him — a PAC called Common Sense Change — mailed flyers to voters across the city saying Mr. Gainey was wasting public money by hiring his cronies.
As part of the push, Mr. Gainey’s campaign even released an internal poll in late April that claimed he had amassed a 7-point lead over Mr. O’Connor.
Then came the dark money.
A super PAC housed in a nondescript, eight-story office building that towers over historic townhomes in Washington, D.C., moved $90,000 into Common Sense Change.
Three days later, the same group, Democracy Wins, sent another $60,000.
In just a few weeks, the group would funnel a total of $366,000 into the race — a massive infusion that fueled an ad blitz to defeat Mr. Gainey and put Mr. O’Connor on a nearly certain path to victory in November.
For voters, there was no way to know who was behind the last-minute flood of cash — or what they might want from the people who run city government.
It was the second time in two years that deep-pocketed donors had concealed their identities behind a network of groups created largely to move vast amounts of money into Western Pennsylvania without anyone knowing the individual contributors.
At a time when Americans are demanding greater transparency in elections, the movement of dark money into the region underscores just how pervasive this new form of campaign spending has become and how it’s impacting the most critical races in local government….
“Montana Initiative to File Bold Blueprint to Challenge Citizens United; New Amendment Would Use Corporate Law to Ban Political Spending”
Press release via email:
The Transparent Election Initiative, a Montana organization, today released the public draft of a historic constitutional amendment that takes direct aim at Citizens United—and the corporate and dark money it unleashed into Montana’s politics. The amendment will be officially filed with the Montana Secretary of State’s office on Friday, August 1.
The 1,000-word amendment takes an innovative new approach by using Montana’s corporate chartering authority to no longer grant its corporations and similar entities the power to use money to influence candidate campaigns or ballot measures. By redefining the powers granted to corporations under Montana law, the measure aims to undo the practical effects of Citizens United within the state.
“This is the first step in a process to place this amendment on the November 3, 2026 general election ballot,” said Jeff Mangan, former Commissioner of Political Practices and leader of the initiative effort. “Montana has a history of ensuring that citizens lead its elections, not corporations. With The Montana Plan, we continue that tradition.”
The amendment’s legal structure, reviewed extensively by legal scholars and government leaders and crafted to withstand judicial scrutiny, uses a “reset and re-grant” framework that reaffirms only those powers necessary for legitimate business or charitable activity—explicitly excluding political spending.
Rather than regulating political conduct, The Montana Plan redefines corporate powers at their source. Mangan explained that corporations only have the powers the state gives them—and Montana is choosing not to give them the power to spend in politics. This principle applies equally to out-of-state corporations, which under Montana law may only exercise powers that in-state corporations may exercise. As a result, Montana’s politics would be free of all corporate electioneering—whether by in-state or out-of-state entities.
The measure would also eliminate “dark money” in Montana’s politics by no longer granting political-spending power to 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporations. Political committees organized exclusively for electioneering would still be allowed, but only if they claim no special privileges other than limited liability. …
You can find the text of the proposed initiative here.
Count me as highly skeptical that this approach around Citizens United would be accepted at the current Supreme Court.
“Democrats Plan $20 Million Fund to Target Texas Republicans for Redistricting”
The largest super PAC backing House Democrats is creating a new fund with upward of $20 million to target congressional Republicans in Texas if legislators there follow through on plans to redraw district lines to eliminate Democratic seats ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
At the direction of President Trump, Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas, a Republican, has called a special session of the State Legislature to remake the lines in the state in order to squeeze as many as five Democrats out of office in an effort to pad the current slim Republican majority in the House.
National Democrats have decried the redistricting effort — lines are typically drawn once a decade after the census — as an effort to rig a Republican majority.
“Republicans are trying to steal five seats in Texas,” said Mike Smith, the president of the House Majority PAC, which is creating the new account, called the Lone Star Fund.
The new account, he said, is partly a bid to tell congressional Republicans from Texas that their own jobs could be put in jeopardy by the remapping as Republican voters are shifted into formerly Democratic seats. But he said it was also a bid to recruit some unlikely Republican allies to oppose the new maps because they fear for their own careers.
“They should be scared and they should be vocal about being scared because they’re about to get a bunch of money dropped on their head,” Mr. Smith said.
The advertising assault on those Republicans will actually begin on Monday, when Unrig Our Economy, a liberal-leaning outside group, is starting an ad campaign worth more than $2 million focusing on four current Republican congressional districts in Houston, Dallas and near the Mexican border, the group said….
“New Eric Adams ‘Donors’ Say They Never Gave to His Reelection Campaign”
The City reports: “Just weeks after the Trump administration pulled off the dismissal of corrupt fundraising charges against Mayor Eric Adams, it appears that his reelection campaign was at it again . . . . The Adams campaign in May once more accepted funds from individuals who appear to be straw donors and submitted them to the city’s $8-to$1 public matching dollars program.”
More on this story from New York Magazine.
“Proxy Season Results Show Strong Support for Corporate Political Disclosure and Accountability”
Bruce Freed, Dan Carroll, and Karl Sandstrom of the Center for Political Accountability, in the Harvard Law School Forum for Corporate Governance: “[V]otes for Governance proposals calling on companies to adopt political disclosure and accountability policies surged in the just concluded 2025 proxy season…. This proxy season saw the average vote on CPA’s resolution rebound to 41.6 percent from last year’s 26.2 percent. This is the third highest vote average for the resolution behind 48.1 percent in 2021 and 41.9 percent in 2020.”
“Silicon Valley’s bet on Trump starts to pay off”
The White House on Wednesday plans to reveal how it will position the United States to lead a global race to develop artificial intelligence and unveil three executive orders intended to boost the American tech sector, according to two people familiar with the rollout who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss plans that have not been made public…..
Trump has flaunted his administration’s connections to the industry as a display of innovation and economic power. But consumer advocates warn that industry should not be able to write its own rules, amid concerns that AI could kill jobs, harm the environment and exacerbate existing social biases….
Trump’s AI plan is just the latest administration policy that stands to amplify the fortunes of his Silicon Valley supporters, many of whom publicized their support for him in the wake of the assassination attempt on Trump in Butler, Pennsylvania, last year and donated millions to support his candidacy.
“5 years after Ohio’s $60M bribery scandal, critics say more could be done to prevent a repeat”
AP:
Five years after a $60 million bribery scheme funded by FirstEnergy Corp. came to light in Ohio, expert observers say the resulting prosecutions, lawsuits, penalties and legislation haven’t led to enough change and accountability to prevent politicians and corporate executives from cutting similar deals in the future.
The scheme — whose prospective $2 billion-plus pricetag to consumers makes it the largest infrastructure scandal in U.S. history — surfaced with the stunning arrests of a powerful Republican state lawmaker and four associates on July 21, 2020.
That lawmaker, former House Speaker Larry Householder, is serving 20 years in federal prison for masterminding the racketeering operation at the center of the scandal.
“How an alleged Georgia Ponzi scheme fueled far-right causes”
AJC:
The Frost family used nearly $1.4 million in campaign contributions, much of it allegedly swindled from investors, to build political clout in Georgia and across the nation over the past two decades, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution analysis shows.
A review of thousands of federal and state campaign finance transactions shows Brant Frost IV, his family and his companies have contributed roughly $711,000 to Republican candidates and conservative causes in Georgia. But the Frosts also spread their contributions far beyond the Peach State, giving significant sums to candidates in Alabama, Florida, Maine and elsewhere….
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission accused Frost IV and his Newnan-based firm, First Liberty Building & Loan, of orchestrating a $140 million Ponzi scheme — and funneling more than $570,000 of the proceeds into campaign coffers.
The AJC scoured state and federal campaign data from across the U.S. and found hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional contributions from the Frost family and their companies that show a broader pattern of political giving that sought to shape Georgia GOP politics, and served and bankrolled ultraconservative causes around the nation.
“Crypto Industry Reaches Milestone With Passage of First Major Bill”
NYT: “The big bipartisan votes on the legislation reflected the industry’s success in cultivating powerful allies in government. Crypto firms financed a network of super PACs that spent more than $130 million backing pro-crypto candidates in the 2024 election.”
Kang, “Party Campaign Finance from FECA to Modern Hyperpartisanship”
Michael Kang’s latest, forthcoming in Fifty Years of Buckley v. Valeo (Lee Bollinger & Geoffrey Stone eds., 2025). The abstract:
Political parties grew from seeming irrelevance in campaign finance at the time of the Federal Election Campaign Act amendments in 1974 to newfound importance in national politics by the soft money era of the 1990s. When Congress finally restricted party soft money in 2002, soft money shifted to nominally independent groups and then, in time, to Super PACs and other outside groups empowered by the Roberts Court’s de-regulation of campaign finance. As I explain here, these changes in modern campaign finance are at least partially responsible for today’s hyperpartisan and polarized politics. Some critics of modern hyperpartisanship and polarization, for this reason, now propose a surprising but simple new reform approach: de-regulation of party campaign finance to strengthen the major parties as counter-weights to the polarizing influence of wealthy donors through their Super PACs and outside groups. However, I argue that de-regulation of party fundraising likely would deepen the major parties’ dependence on their most wealthy, and ideologically extreme, donors for financial support. As a consequence, de-regulation of party fundraising would accelerate the lurch toward the polarized ideological preferences of their committed donors rather than counteract it.