Billionaire Power Surge Drowns Out American Democracy

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 26, 2025 – The influence of money on American politics has always sparked intense debate, but the 2025 federal election marks another alarming ​chapter. Unsurprisingly $2.6 billion in flooded country coffers – provided by only 100 billion families – have radically restructured the political landscape. According to the latest United States ​Tax Fairness Report (ATF), the multi-million dollar election spending has ​exploded 160 times since the 2010 Supreme Court ​of Citizens decision. The ​result? An American ​democracy overflows under the weight of uncontrolled wealth and the declining influence of voters.

How did we get here? The rise ​of ​the “Welthification”

The expression “rich” invented ​by Darrell West, a senior member of Brookings Institution, captures a star transformation of American politics: an increasingly rich system. According to the West, this change ​began seriously after World War II, reversed post-war progressive policies, and gained momentum in the 1980s under President Reagan, whose tax cuts and deregulation opened the door to rising income inequality.

“If we go ​back to 100 years, income inequality has reached similar levels, but it has dropped ​dramatically between ​the 1940s and the 1970s,” said West in a ​recent podcast. “Now ​we ​are back to these extremes, but ​with more complex financial tools and ​much more political access. »

While wealth disparity is a global phenomenon, the United States ​exercises ​only a ​multi-million ​dollar political influence, thanks to the decisions of the Supreme Court as United Citizens, which dismantled the limits of contributions to the campaign. Unlike many ​European ​democracies that maintain campaign financial restrictions, US billionaires can now inject unlimited funds into politics with minimal ​transparency or oversight.

Who pays, who wins?

According to the ATF report, 70% of the contributions of several million campaigns in 2024 supported Republican candidates and causes. ​On ​the contrary, only 23% went to the Democrats. Among the biggest donors: the technological movement Elon Musk, which alone pours ​$278 million, instead of quadrupling its federal tax ​payments from 2013 to 2018, in ​GOP’s efforts, notably to ​re-elect Donald Trump.

But Musk is ​not alone. Other billionaires, such ​as Linda ​McMahon, who has ​contributed $25 million ​and now leads the Department of Education, and Howard Lutnick, who ​has donated more than ​$21 million and who has been appointed Secretary of Trade, illustrate a growing trend where contributions to ​the campaigns are rewarded ​by government. In many ​cases, the ​persons appointed as chair ​of the bodies that ​have promised to dismantle, a phenomenon that raises deep ethical and democratic concerns.

Q: Why does ​this trend refer to democracy?

A: Because the power of ​voters and the hands of ​the richest change. ​When billionaires dominate political ​spending, policies begin to reflect elite priorities – such as tax cuts and deregulation – rather than ​the needs of the general public. As ATF Executive Director David Kass pointed out, “the exchange of electric money that was still hidden in the back rooms has now entered the opening”

Do billionaires also buy laws?

Not only are billionaires shaping election ​results, but ​they also ​influence legislation. Many donors, analysts say, consider political contributions not a civic commitment but an investment. A few million dollars for fiscal policy or deregulation can produce hundreds of millions ​in return. In ​sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals and ​energy, this influence can directly shape laws that affect millions of Americans.

“There is a ​theory of political investment,” says West. “If a billionaire donates ​$10 million and ensures that a favourable ​$100 million bill is ​passed, it’s a big return on investment. This is ​particularly worrying ​when it is standardized, as it now seems.

Q: Has he always been like this?

A: Historically rich industrialists like Rockefellers and Carnegies have ​considerable influence. But between the 1940s and 1970s, progressive control, ​public investment and labour protection reduced income ​gaps and the passage ​of elites. This progress began to erode in the late 1970s, and ​Citizens United in 2010 eliminated ​the final guards, allowing money ​to ​flood the system again.

The Musk Model: ​Influence without Accountability

One of the most controversial examples of this new political economy is the appointment ​of Elon Musk as head of the Department of Government Efficiency. Although technically a “special government worker,” Musk rejected the ​rules of conflict of interest and ethical dissemination, raising red flags on self-dedicated ​business at the highest levels of government. According to several media outlets, Musk and his team have reduced the number of federal workers and reoriented the priorities of ​organizations, often to benefit their ​business interests.

“We can all see what’s going on,” said West. “There is no hiding place. The question is whether ​the Americans will respond with a responsibility movement or ​accept it as the new normal. “

Q: Could the financial reform of the campaign ​correct this?

A: Potentially, but only if ​it gains ​enough political ​traction. According to ​the West, the reform enjoys significant public support. During Obama and Biden administrations, class policies, such as tax increases for rich and expanded access to health, resonated ​with voters. But with the two major parties now dependent on major donors, important reforms are facing ​a difficult battle.

Lessons from History: A Way Forward?

Despite the challenges, ​history offers a plan for change. At the beginning of the 20th century, popular movements led by farmers, workers and progressives retreated against monopoly power. Their efforts ​lead to ​policies that support the prosperity of the working class and reduce the income gap.

“We ​still need it,” ​said West. “But not like Occupy Wall ​Street, who had ​passion but no politics wins. Effective change requires a strategic movement led by the coalition ​based on history and empowered by popular energy. “

In fact, the success of the Tea Party in 2010 – mobilizing Conservative discontent to change Congress – shows that organized movements can still change political balance. It remains to be ​seen whether the Liberal groups can achieve the same ​goal by 2026. But with the small ​majority of POPs in the House ​and Senate, ​even small electoral changes could have significant consequences.

Q: Is the influence of billionaires permanent?

A: Not ​necessarily. While the current ​trajectory suggests growing oligarchic ​control, ​voter mobilization, public outrage and bipartite support for financial reform could recalibrate the system. ​As West said, “Finally, we are more numerous than ​they are.”

What should ​citizens do?

One of the proudest comments of this ​debate is that many Americans are mistaken in social media activism through their ​political commitment. “A tweet ​is not a demonstration,” West warned. “Real change means ​getting involved, calling, organizing, pressuring and taking responsibility for leaders. »

Young people, in particular, must understand that democracy is not self-sufficient. “Policy matters,” he recently told a group of students. “And your involvement is important. ​We know how to reduce ​inequalities. But we need a collective will.”

What’s in ​danger?

The current imbalance threatens not only ​the results of policies, but also the very idea of American ​democracy. When billionaires exert more influence than voters, when private wealth dictates public priorities, and when political offices are actually sold to the ​highest bidder, confidence in the ​democratic ​process collapses.

“It’s not about hating the rich,” said West. “Many of ​them are brilliant innovators and philanthropists. The concern is whether they use public functions to serve us all, or only ​themselves

As the 2026 ​period approaches, the ​Americans face ​a critical test: will the electorate regain power, or will the ​multi-million dollar rule become the defining feature of 21st century democracy?