Cat's Musings

Money and politics

If you are a fan of the current United States administration, you probably will not like this blogpost.

The system is broken, and I don't think we can fix it.

Elections are extremely expensive affairs. The United States began to industrialize rapidly over the 1800s. The American aristocracy consolidated powers into greater and wealthier corporate entities. Everyone knows of robber barons such as John D. Rockefeller or JP Morgan, but there are more leviathans of monopoly. Nearly every industry was dominated by big business interests. The laissez-faire nature of the American experiment made it inevitable that the traditional control by large scale agriculture would extend to industry. Soon, individuals controlled inconceivably large amounts of money while many Americans toiled and died in tenement apartments. This was the Gilded Age. Beneath the glamour, you had the rot.

'The Protectors of our Industries', an iconic Puck political cartoon. This one shows robber baron industrialists as they are - wealth propped up on the backs of the working class.

Things have changed since the gilded age. There is an increased safety net compared to where we were nearly a century and a half ago. Regulation and anti-trust laws remain on the books. Times are lean here in 2026 and, while the oligarchs nakedly want to strip those regulations away, they’re still technically there. For now. This is just dressing for the topic I actually want to talk about: money in politics.

'The Bosses of the Senate' is another famous political cartoon depicting big business Trusts as the true masters of the legislature.

History

The patronage system was the accepted norm in politics since the Jackson presidency. Donors and supporters would be rewarded for their loyalty and contributions with government positions. Also known as the spoils system, this was challenged by the Pendleton Act (1883), which expressly forbade this practice. The gilded age was followed by the short lived and often short sighted Progressive Era, which further attacked the overwhelming power of money in an economic and political system that kowtowed to the monetary interests. Over the next century, steps were taken to limit the ability of corporations to directly buy elections.

The banning of corporate campaign contributions led to the prevalence soft money, which was funding to be used for general party building purposes. This loophole was cinched (but not closed) by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act in 2002.

Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010)

A lawsuit was filed in protest against the BCRA when a movie against Hillary Clinton, produced by conservative nonprofit Citizens United. This landmark court case is the precedent under which the US currently lives under. In a 5-4 split along ideological lines, The Roberts court (conservative) ruled that freedom of speech was integral to a democratic form of government - and that corporate speech was also valid.

It sounds great on the surface - freedom of speech is a good thing, right? However, this decision is, in practice, detrimental to speech. There is an increasing importance of Super PACs - independent organizations that are legally distinct from a candidate. These organizations can raise and spend without restriction, which can drown out disenfranchised voices under mountains of money.

Super PACs

This corporate ‘dark money’ is why we saw record setting money flow into the 2024 election. 1.9 billion dollars via these Super PACs (which are not required to disclose their donors) poured into the election for one purpose: to buy the government. According to Open Secrets, the Harris campaign spent more money in the election, with around 40% of the funds coming from small individual contributions from private individuals. Contrast this with Donald Trump, who benefited from less than 30% of his funds coming from small contributions. Most of his money, overwhelmingly, was funneled through these Super PACs, with his largest ‘large’ donors being Elon Musk (who is actively trying to fund pro-business right wing fascism in foreign elections) and Palantir (who monitor mass data, which enables surveillance).

The reason why I say I don’t think we can fix it is because large donors still dig deep for democrats as well - a majority of the Harris campaign’s funding comes from large donors, even if it was a smaller percentage. Democrats are, in general, better on the issues than Republicans. But both are more than willing to engage in machine politics if the cost is right. Why change the status quo when it is easier to just comply and get a nice paycheck?

Not even pretending

Governor Greg Abbott has pledged to pour millions of dollars into ‘turning Harris county red’. I’m not surprised by this, of course. I think I’m struck more by how nonchalant it was - both by the governor and the media. Why is it acceptable to talk like this? Of districts and elections as something to be bought? Of livelihoods and futures a possession to purchased?

I know this is not new to the human experience, but it stinks as deeply undemocratic to me.

Some references:

Oyez: Citizens United

Brennan Center for Justice

#politics