Category Archives: Plutocrats United

“Plutocratic Democracy, Elon Musk, and the Limits of Campaign Finance Reform”

campaign finance, Plutocrats United

Guy Charles and Frances Peale have posted this draft on SSRN (forthcoming in  Campaign Finance and the First Amendment, Lee C. Bollinger & Geoffrey R. Stone, Eds., 2025). Here is the abstract:

Politicians appear to be increasingly dependent upon a group of ultra-wealthy elites who not only fund their campaigns but are critical for the functioning of public governance. These ultrawealthy individuals provide the indispensable infrastructure, expertise, and communication that are critical to modern electoral politics. These ultra-wealthy individuals want more than influence, seeking instead to govern even though the voters do not elect them. This chapter describes this process and argues that the campaign finance literature, which is mired in a debate about corruption and equality, is not well-positioned to address this contemporary challenge to representative democracy. The piece refers to this challenge as “plutocratic democracy,” and uses Elon Musk as a case study.

This is an important piece, and is very much in line with my own draft, Faux Campaign Finance Regulation and the Pathway to American Oligarchy (conference paper dated Apr. 24, 2025, draft available, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5229707).

Share this:

“Montana Initiative to File Bold Blueprint to Challenge Citizens United; New Amendment Would Use Corporate Law to Ban Political Spending”

campaign finance, Plutocrats United, Supreme Court

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.

Share this:

“Billionaire Michael Bloomberg opens his wallet for Andrew Cuomo’s mayoral bid”

campaign finance, Plutocrats United

Politico:

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg was no fan of Andrew Cuomo when the two served overlapping tenures as mayor and governor. But on Friday all appeared forgiven, with Bloomberg’s $5 million donation to a super PAC boosting Cuomo’s mayoral bid.

It’s the largest cash infusion yet to the entity and comes in the final 10 days of the Democratic primary to oust Mayor Eric Adams, once a Bloomberg ally. The former mayor — a party hopscotcher who is now a Democrat — is jumping in as Cuomo faces a threat from democratic socialist challenger Zohran Mamdani, whose views on hiking taxes on the rich and criticisms of Israel are anathema to Bloomberg….

Share this:

“Musk to step back from political spending: ‘I think I’ve done enough’”

campaign finance, Plutocrats United

Politico:

Elon Musk said he plans to cut back on political spending, saying he has “done enough,” a move that coincides with the billionaire entrepreneur taking a step back from President Donald Trump’s Washington.

Speaking at the Qatar Economic Forum on Tuesday, the Tesla CEO said he would “do a lot less” political spending “in the future,” adding: “I think I’ve done enough.”…“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….

Share this:

My New Draft: “Faux Campaign Finance Regulation and the Pathway to American Oligarchy”

campaign finance, Plutocrats United

I have posted this draft for an upcoming conference on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The collapse of campaign finance regulation in the United States has facilitated a path toward oligarchic power redistribution. Americans did not adopt the current set of rules favoring the influence of the ultrarich over who is elected and what candidates do once in office through democratically-promulgated legislation. Instead, a long-term litigation strategy using the First Amendment of the United States Constitution as a deregulatory cudgel has decimated reasonable limits enacted by Congress and curtailed even disclosure of some political activity. Remaining campaign finance rules are easily circumvented, leading to faux regulation that makes it hard for ordinary people to understand the increased power of the wealthy.

 Under the current campaign finance regime, American billionaires have begun giving tens—and increasingly hundreds—of millions of dollars to nominally independent political groups (including “super PACs”) to support candidates for President and other offices. These outside groups may accept unlimited funding to coordinate with candidates, including staffing their entire field operations, without running afoul of the legalistic prohibition on “coordination.” Such spending buys outside group funders unprecedented candidate access. With plutocratic power rising, other actors are constrained: p­­olitical parties remain severely limited in their ability to coordinate and raise funds. Strict direct individual contributions limits curtail the average voter’s influence and can trap less sophisticated donors who lack lawyers navigating them through the loopholes.

Part I describes the litigation strategy that led to deregulation with a false appearance of continued regulation. Part II describes the state of campaign financing in federal elections in the United States, with special attention paid to the activities of the ultrawealthy in the 2024 elections, especially Elon Musk. Part III explains how the new campaign finance regime, facilitated by litigation-driven deregulation, raises the risk of American oligarchy.

Here is a figure from the paper:

Share this:

My New One at Slate: “What Elon Musk Won in Wisconsin”

campaign finance, judicial elections, Plutocrats United, redistricting

I have written this piece for Slate. It begins:

Democrats and progressives rightly celebrated the victory of liberal Susan Crawford over Trump-endorsed Brad Schimel for a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But the left is prematurely gloating over how Elon Musk’s deep support of Schimel appears to have backfired. There’s every reason to believe that the same pathologies in U.S. elections and election law on exhibition in Wisconsin will continue. So too will the outsize involvement of Musk and other billionaires in American elections, although the Wisconsin race is more likely to push Musk and his compatriots into the shadows.

One could teach an entire course in election law by studying just this one race. …

And not to be missed are the stakes themselves. Aside from a high-profile abortion rights case, the most important issue likely to come before the Wisconsin justices soon involves the question of whether partisan gerrymandering violates the state Constitution. Wisconsin has some of the most gerrymandered congressional districts in the country, and when conservatives controlled the court, they rejected arguments to require the drawing of fair districts under the state Constitution. The court could now reverse such a holding with Crawford’s victory. (The opposite happened in North Carolina, where the left-leaning state Supreme Court first recognized partisan gerrymandering claims only to see that reversed when the right took control of the court.)

Redistricting, more than anything else, probably explains why Elon Musk poured more than $20 million into this race and made numerous statements and even a personal appearance to boost Schimel. He said on the Sunday before the election: “If the [Wisconsin] Supreme Court is able to redraw the districts, they will gerrymander the district and deprive Wisconsin of two seats on the Republican side. … Then they will try to stop all the government reforms we are getting done for you, the American people.” Indeed, he also said: “What’s happening on Tuesday is a vote for which party controls the U.S. House of Representatives—that is why it is so significant. … And whichever party controls the House to a significant degree controls the country, which then steers the course of Western civilization. I feel like this is one of those things that may not seem that it’s going to affect the entire destiny of humanity, but I think it will.”…

And then in the middle of the night the weekend before the election, he announced on X—the platform he owns and uses to promote his political causes—that he would give away $1 million to some people who voted in the Wisconsin race. That announcement likely violated Wisconsin election law, as I explained soon after it was made. He quickly reworked his plan so that it no longer required proof of voting, in order to give it a sheen of legality, but the message was out there. Indeed in another message that Musk’s people posted and then took down, one of the $1 million winners of Musk’s giveaway (which apparently also wasn’t a random lottery) said she got the money in part for voting.

After Musk lost, he downplayed the importance of the race, but his political people signaled he is going to stay involved in supporting Republicans in 2026 and beyond. The lesson he’s likely to learn is the lesson other billionaires already have learned. If you’ve got it, don’t flaunt it. People are turned off by the display of money being converted to raw political power….

Share this:

“Liberal Wins Wisconsin Court Race, Despite Musk’s Millions”

judicial elections, Plutocrats United, redistricting

NYT:

A liberal candidate for a pivotal seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court overcame $25 million in spending from Elon Musk and defeated her conservative opponent on Tuesday, The Associated Press reported, in a contest that became a kind of referendum on Mr. Musk and his slashing of the federal government.

With turnout extraordinarily high for a spring election in an off year, Judge Susan Crawford handily beat Judge Brad Schimel, who ran on his loyalty to President Trump and was aided by Mr. Musk, the president’s billionaire policy aide.

Mr. Musk not only poured money into the race but also campaigned personally in the state, even donning a cheesehead. But his starring role seemed to inflame Democratic anger against him even more than it helped Judge Schimel.

The barrage of spending in the race may nearly double the previous record for a single judicial election. With about 95 percent of the vote counted on Tuesday evening, Judge Crawford held a lead of roughly 9 points….

The race could also have implications for control of Congress, where Republicans’ razor-thin edge was fortified on Tuesday when the party held on to two Florida seats in special elections. Democrats have quietly argued for months that a Crawford victory would pave the way for a liberal-tilting Wisconsin Supreme Court to order new congressional maps, which could help Democrats defeat one or two of the state’s Republican Congress members.
…

Share this:

“Elon Musk Revealed Why He’s Spending Millions to Flip the Wisconsin Supreme Court; It’s all about preserving gerrymandered districts that lock in Republican power.”

judicial elections, Plutocrats United, redistricting

Ari Berman in Mother Jones:

On March 22, Elon Musk hosted conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel and US Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) for a discussion on X about the importance of the Wisconsin Supreme Court election on April 1. It began 36 minutes late and was beset with technical difficulties, as Musk repeatedly talked over Schimel.

But once things got straightened out, Musk made it clear why he is offering voters $100 a pop to sign a petition opposing “activist judges” and spending $18 million through various political groups—a record for any donor in a Wisconsin judicial contest—to elect Schimel and flip the ideological majority of the court.

“This is a very important race for many reasons,” Musk said. “The most consequential is that [it] will decide how congressional districts are drawn in Wisconsin, which if the other candidate wins, instead of Justice Schimel, then the Democrats will attempt to redraw the districts and cause Wisconsin to lose two Republican seats. In my opinion that’s the most important thing, which is a big deal given that the congressional majority is so razor-thin. It could cause the House to switch to Democrat if that redrawing takes place.”

Musk’s fear is that the court, if it retains a progressive majority, will strike down the congressional lines that give Republicans a 6-2 advantage in the US House delegation. (Democrats have made similar claims.) The Princeton Gerrymandering Project gave that map an F for partisan fairness, saying it had a “significant Republican advantage.” The court has yet to take up a lawsuit challenging the congressional map, but if they were to eventually strike it down, that could help Democrats retake the House, which would allow Democrats to scrutinize the unprecedented role Musk is playing in shredding the federal government, accessing sensitive personal information on millions of Americans, and the $38 billion in federal funding his businesses receive….

Share this:

“Musk and Trump ratchet up involvement in Wisconsin Supreme Court race”

judicial elections, Plutocrats United

WaPo:

President Donald Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk are going all-in on flipping control of Wisconsin’s top court, with Trump endorsing the conservative in the race and Musk’s PAC hunting for votes by offering state residents cash for their contact details.

The burst of support comes as Trump faces his first test with swing-state voters in the April 1 election since winning a second term in November. The court is expected to decide the future of abortion in the state and could redraw a congressional map that has given Republicans six of the state’s eight seats.

Trump on Friday said on his Truth Social platform that he was backing Brad Schimel, a Waukesha County judge and former Republican state attorney general who is seeking a seat on Wisconsin’s high court. He excoriated the liberal in the race, Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, writing “if she wins, the Movement to restore our Nation will bypass Wisconsin.”

Groups affiliated with Musk have poured more than $13 million into Wisconsin in recent weeks in what is already the most expensive court race in U.S. history. Musk, ranked by Forbes as the world’s richest person, has put a spotlight on the race as he assists Trump with firing government workers and shuttering federal agencies through his U.S. DOGE Service.

Musk dialed up his focus on Wisconsin on Thursday when his America PAC offered registered voters in the state $100 if they provided contact information and signed a petition opposing activist judges. The PAC also offered them $100 for each registered Wisconsin voter they referred to sign the petition — but the fine print of the offer said the PAC would determine whom to pay and noted payments may not be made for months. The payment-for-data arrangement will give Musk’s team an easy way to reach a pool of voters it can bombard with messages urging them to support Schimel in the election. Turnout in Wisconsin court elections is much lower than in presidential elections, and liberals have had a large turnout advantage in recent court races. Political observers for both sides say Schimel’s best chance of success is to get voters who backed Trump in November to the polls.

On Saturday, Musk hosted Schimel on an audio live stream on X, the social media site owned by Musk. “If you look at the early voting data so far, Democrats are winning, which is not good,” Musk said…..

Share this:

“Oligarchy, State, and Cryptopia”

Plutocrats United

Julie Cohen has posted this important draft on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Theoretical accounts of power in networked digital environments typically do not give systematic attention to the phenomenon of oligarchy—to extreme concentrations of material wealth deployed to obtain and protect durable personal advantage. The biggest technology platform companies are dominated to a singular extent by a small group of very powerful and extremely wealthy men who have played uniquely influential roles in structuring technological development in particular ways that align with their personal beliefs and who now wield unprecedented informational, sociotechnical, and political power. Developing an account of oligarchy and, more specifically, of tech oligarchy within contemporary political economy therefore has become a project of considerable urgency. This essay undertakes that project.

As I will show, tech oligarchs’ power derives partly from legal entrepreneurship related to corporate governance and partly from the infrastructural character of the functions the largest technology platform firms now perform. It is transnational and multidimensional, producing a wide range of consequences that are impossible for millions (and sometimes billions) around the globe to avoid. And it is personal; tech oligarchs have never been required to trade increased scale for increased accountability.

This account of tech oligarchy has important implications for three large categories of hotly debated issues. First, it sheds new light on the much-remarked inability of nation states to govern giant global technology platform firms effectively using the traditional tools of economic regulation. Second, it illuminates an important difference between the way capitalists approach projects for regulatory capture and the way technology oligarchs approach them. The ordinary capture projects of most interest to tech oligarchs revolve around personal enrichment; the extraordinary experiment that the U.S. is now witnessing, however, also seeks to reconfigure the state and its constituent institutions in ways more amenable to oligarchic direction. Third, it counsels more careful attention to an array of other oligarchic projects—including especially dreams of space colonization and the quest to develop artificial general intelligence—that have struck many observers as fantastical. Through such projects, tech oligarchs are working to dismantle existing forms of social, economic, and political organization and define a human future that they alone determine.

Share this:

“Musk Seeks to Put $100 Million Directly Into Trump Political Operation”

conflict of interest laws, Plutocrats United

NYT:

Elon Musk has signaled to President Trump’s advisers in recent days that he wants to put $100 million into groups controlled by the Trump political operation, according to three people with knowledge of the matter.

It is unheard-of for a White House staffer, even one with part-time status, to make such large political contributions to support the agenda of the boss. But there has never been someone in the direct employ of an administration like Mr. Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, who is leading Mr. Trump’s aggressive effort to shrink the federal government, the Department of Government Efficiency.

Over the weekend, Mr. Musk traveled to and from Florida aboard Air Force One with Mr. Trump, and posted on his social media website, X, that he had dinner with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Saturday night after some tense interactions earlier in the week.

And on Tuesday, as Mr. Musk’s electric car company, Tesla, faced some violent protests around the globe, Mr. Trump made a display of having five Teslas brought to the White House grounds in a demonstration for the news media, and checked out the cars with Mr. Musk by his side. It was an extraordinary promotion of a company by the most powerful person in the federal government.

“I think he’s been treated very unfairly by a very small group of people,” Mr. Trump told reporters, referring to Mr. Musk. “And I just want people to know that he can’t be penalized for being a patriot.”

Mr. Musk and White House officials didn’t return a request for comment.

Associates of both Mr. Musk and Mr. Trump have talked in recent days about Mr. Musk’s planned donation to a Trump-controlled entity. Mr. Musk has signaled he wants to make the donations not to his own super PAC, which is called America PAC and has spent heavily on Mr. Trump in the past, but to an outside entity affiliated with the president.

The groups that are leading Mr. Trump’s outside activities include Make America Great Again Inc., a super PAC, and Securing American Greatness, a political nonprofit. It is not clear if the money would go to those groups or to a new entity the Trump team could create.

Both MAGA Inc. and Securing American Greatness were founded by close allies of Mr. Trump, and have a diverse set of major donors aligned with the president.

Share this:

“In Wisconsin’s Supreme Court race, both sides take aim at the other’s billionaire backers”

campaign finance, judicial elections, Plutocrats United

NBC News:

The Wisconsin Supreme Court contest is shaping up to be a battle of billionaires, with each side in the race casting the other’s most prominent donors as boogeymen.

Liberal megadonors like George Soros and outside groups with ties to Elon Musk have spent millions in the first major race in a battleground state since the 2024 election that both parties will look to as a barometer of the political environment in the opening weeks of President Donald Trump’s administration.

The technically nonpartisan April 1 election will determine the state Supreme Court’s ideological balance for the second time in two years. Brad Schimel, the conservative candidate and a state judge in Waukesha County who previously served as the state’s Republican attorney general, is facing off against Susan Crawford, the liberal candidate and a state judge in Madison.

Thanks in large part to the involvement of megadonors like Musk and Soros, the race is on track to surpass the state’s 2023 contest as the most expensive state Supreme Court campaign in U.S. history. And like that race, the future of several hot-button issues with both state and national significance — including abortion rights, unions and congressional maps — will again be at stake.

Democrats in particular have trained their sights on Musk, the tech billionaire who’s running the controversial Department of Government Efficiency.

This week, the Wisconsin Democratic Party launched what it’s calling a seven-figure investment to link Schimel to Musk. The spending will be geared toward ads, town hall events and canvassing efforts that specifically take aim at Musk.

One digital spot that started running this week lists off a series of actions DOGE has taken or recommended, before slamming Musk as “out of control” and accusing him of “unloading millions to buy the Wisconsin Supreme Court.”

“He knows MAGA politician Brad Schimel is for sale,” the ad’s narrator says….

On the other side, the Wisconsin Republican Party and aligned groups have drawn attention to the cadre of liberal billionaires who have thrown money into the race, including Soros and LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman.

“Susan Crawford is a vehicle for Democrats, like George Soros and Reid Hoffman, to implement a dangerously unpopular agenda,” Wisconsin GOP spokesperson Anika Rickard said.

House Freedom Action, the political arm of the conservative U.S. House Freedom Caucus, has begun running ads that specifically take aim at Crawford for receiving support from Soros, Hoffman and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker….

Several other ultrawealthy Americans have also gotten involved in the race, particularly on the conservative side.

For example, Elizabeth Uihlein gave $650,000 to the Wisconsin GOP in January, while Joe Ricketts, the founder of TD Ameritrade, chipped in $500,000. Diane Hendricks, the billionaire businesswoman and film producer who owns ABC Supply, also gave the Wisconsin Republican Party $975,000 that month.

Share this:

“A Kennedy Ally Puts Money Into a Push to Recall Karen Bass”

campaign finance, Plutocrats United, recall elections

NYT:

The first serious effort to recall Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles after the city’s devastating fires is taking shape, with financial backing from Nicole Shanahan, who was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s running mate in last year’s presidential election.

Ms. Shanahan’s involvement in the push to remove the mayor was disclosed on the bottom of a website for the Recall Karen Bass Committee, which listed her as the sole donor providing “major funding.” Ms. Shanahan did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Ms. Shanahan, a onetime Silicon Valley lawyer, could bring financial firepower to the effort: She has a fortune in the realm of $1 billion that stems largely from her divorce settlement with Sergey Brin, the Google co-founder. She has also demonstrated a willingness to pour her wealth into politics, spending more than $15 million to support Mr. Kennedy’s campaign….

Share this:

Bezos Announces New Policy for Washington Post’s Opinion Pages. Orbán Playbook?

Plutocrats United

From the Washington Post:

“Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos said Wednesday that the newspaper’s opinions section would now be focused on “personal liberties and free markets” and won’t publish anything that opposes those ideas.”

For now, it appears that Bezos is not seeking to influence the Post’s reporting, but this does have a chilling similarity to the Orbán playbook, as described in this podcast with Kim Lane Scheppele. A key moment in Hungary’s slide to autocracy was the purchase of major news outlets by wealthy allies of Orbán. The dynamics are obviously different here, but Fox, X, and now the Washington Post.

Share this: