Democrats have been sounding the alarm that Donald Trump and the movement behind him poses a threat to democracy. The concern is real, of course, but we should note that it threatens an already flawed democracy -- a democracy more accurately called a "plutocracy." Our plutocracy is a result of public elections being funded through virtually unlimited private contributions. Unlike our school districts, our police departments, our fire departments, and other public sector institutions, our electoral system lies squarely in the private sector and is subject to all the inequities in that sector.
The intrusion of vast sums of private money into our elections privileges the wealthiest individuals among us. When campaigns rely on private funding, a candidate must gain the support of those people in control of significant wealth to run an effective campaign. Candidates who cannot, simply can't compete. Privately funded electoral systems undermine ostensibly equal political liberties in which each person's political preferences weigh equally. They inevitably produces a plutocracy: a system in which the wealthy political donor class collectively guarantees the viability of candidates that protect their class interests. In a plutocracy, a person's potential political power is equal to their wealth. This is bad enough, but recently, our plutocracy has begun devolving into an even more undemocratic system: an oligarchy: a system in which not a broad, wealthy social class, but super-wealthy individuals exercise extreme influence on political campaigns.
According to OpenSecrets, up through the 2010 election cycle, no individual or couple made contributions to federal elections of more than $20 million in a single election cycle; however, as a result of the 2010 ruling in Citizens United, the American oligarchy got underway. In the 2012 election cycle, Sheldon and Miriam Adelson made political contributions amounting to $93.1 million, Harold and Annette Simmons contributed more than $27 million, and Bob and Doylene Perry contributed $24.5 million -- all to Republican candidates or Republican causes. Democratic oligarchs responded in the following election cycle. Tom Steyer contributed $75.4 million and Michael Bloomberg contributed $28.5 million -- all to Democratic candidates and Democratic causes. After that, well, Katie bar the door.
The U.S. private system of campaign finance has given super-wealthy individuals the power to affect elections that no ordinary citizen has ever had. Since Citizens United, 33 individuals or couples contributed more than $20 million to candidates and political causes in a single election cycle. In the 2020 cycle, 15 individuals or couples contributed a combined total of $912 million. In the 2022 cycle, 19 individuals or couples contributed $861.9 million. Based on data released by the Federal Elections Commission on Feb. 2, 2024, in the 2024 cycle, 12 individuals or couples had already contributed $542.2 million. Since Citizens United, people donating $20 million or more in a single cycle have contributed over $3.3 billion to candidates and political causes.
The partisan breakdown of donations is also revealing. After Citizens United, Republican donors contributed over $1.95 billion. Democratic donors contributed $1.42 billion. One might conclude from this that while the Republicans have an edge, the rough equality of these numbers means that our system is not especially skewed against either political party; but that overlooks the bias against candidates who aren't popular among wealthy donors. There can be vigorous disagreement between Republicans and Democrats regarding many issues, but there will never be serious threats to the wealth of oligarchs or the system that created it. According to the Pew Research Center, roughly a third of Americans have a favorable view of socialism. It's unlikely that a third of our oligarchs have a similarly favorable view.
Only a few politicians will succeed by taking positions that are critical of the private interests that fund our elections. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are notable here. Their success, however, is due to the size and demographics of their constituencies. Ocasio-Cortez represents a single, urban congressional district, populated by an electorate that is unlike the wider U.S. population. As such, she is more able to defeat the influence of big money. The same is true for Sanders. After all, Vermont's population is no larger than a single congressional district. Consequently, Sanders is able overcome the interference of outside, big money; but the general political economy of campaign finance ensures that Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders will be rare exceptions.
Opensecrets.org has done a good job of examining campaign finance records to identify the most prominent oligarchs. To make the short list, I have set a bar of contributions of at least $20 million in a single election cycle going back to 2010 -- the earliest data published by OpenSecrets. Here are the 33 campaign finance oligarchs that make the cut and their total individual contributions since Citizens United:
- Sheldon & Miriam Adelson (Rep.) $542,711,025
- Michael Bloomberg (Dem.) $350,224,779
- Tom & Kathryn Steyer (Dem.) $312,394,765
- Richard & Elizabeth Uihlein (Rep.) $293,341,633
- George Soros (Dem.) $221,066,069
- Timothy Mellon (Rep.) $216,884,270
- Kenneth Griffin (Rep.) $215,446,668
- Jeffrey & Janine Yass (Rep.) $157,449,281
- Fred Eychaner (Dem.) $97,154,090
- James & Marilyn Simons (Dem.) $97,067,551
- Donald Sussman (Dem.) $95,845,250
- Paul Singer (Dem.) $87,383,278
- Dustin & Cari Moskovitz (Rep.) $77,569,612
- Stephen & Christine Schwarzman (Rep.) $72,857,142
- Karla Jurvetson (Dem.) $58,905,366
- Laura Perlmutter (Rep.) $44,461,791
- Sam Bankman-Fried (Dem.) $40,743,790
- Peter Thiel (Rep.) $35,373,342
- Lawrence Ellison (Rep.) $31,007,943
- Rob Bigelow (Rep.) $29,641,500
- Shirley Ryan (Rep.) $28,206,300
- Harold & Annette Simmons (Rep.) $27,066,900
- Diane Hendricks (Rep.) $25,742,500
- Reid Garrett Hoffman (Dem.) $25,701,401
- Robert & Diane Mercer (Rep.) $25,620,300
- Bernard & Billi Wilma Marcs (Rep.) $24,736,435
- Felicia Horowitz (Both) $24,529,147
- Bob & Doylene Perry (Rep.) $24,509,200
- Marc Andreessen (Both) $24,452,665
- Ryan Salame (Rep.) $24,053,000
- James & Mary Pritzker (Dem.) $22,305,000
- John & Marlene Ricketts (Rep.) $21,555,750
- Deborah Simon (Dem.) $20,006,173
As mentioned before, the total amount donated by these 33 oligarchs exceeds $3.3 billion, but these totals do not include the vast amount of money that the oligarchs might well be channeling through "dark money" committees that are not required to disclose their donors. Nor do these totals include donations to state and local elections; so, for example, the $323.6 million J.B. Pritzker spent of his own money on his two campaigns for governor of Illinois are not included.
One way to support democracy and mitigate the power of oligarchs is to remove political campaign funding from the private sphere and establish a workable system of publicly financed elections. The best method I know of for doing this was suggested by Lawrence Lessig in his 2011 book, Republic, Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress and How to Stop It. See my review of it at books, etc.
Briefly, Lessig proposes that each voter be granted a $50 voucher they can use to contribute to any candidate or candidates they choose. Additionally, any voter may contribute an additional $100 of their own money as long as they make no other, political donations. This would ensure that candidates that are genuinely popular are able to run effective campaigns. Assuming every registered voter made use of their voucher, it would cost the Treasury about $8.4 billion which is about 58% of the total expenditures for all federal elections in 2020. Under this system, elections would be funded by voters, not oligarchs.
