Musk's $400 Million Election Push Exceeds Democratic Mega-Donors

Musk has donated more than $400 million to Republican causes ahead of the midterm elections scheduled for next week. This figure far exceeds the combined contributions from Democratic mega-donors Michael Bloomberg and George Soros, according to reports from The Washington Post and CNN.

His political reach extends beyond fundraising. This month, SpaceX temporarily restricted Ukraine's access to the Starlink satellite system. The move caused some Ukrainian drones to fall from the sky, prompting debate over the role of private entities in wartime operations.

Kara Swisher, a tech journalist and frequent critic of the billionaire, argued on Morning Edition that no private citizen, particularly the world's richest person, should be making such decisions. David Nasaw, an emeritus history professor at the City University of New York, agreed with that assessment.

Nasaw, who authored a biography of steel magnate Andrew Carnegie, stated that millionaires and billionaires have always exercised undue power over the political system. However, he noted that no one has held a position quite like Musk. The tech leader was the first individual to cross the trillionaire threshold. He also oversaw the Department of Government Efficiency, which dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, a foreign aid operation created by Congress. Over the years, Musk's companies, including SpaceX and Tesla, have secured more than $30 billion in federal contracts, subsidies, loans, and tax credits.

Nasaw described this dynamic as an unholy alliance. He explained that Musk makes money and then returns that money to keep those who are friendly to him in power. Nasaw argues that the current democratic system cannot effectively check someone of Musk's size. He suggests Congress should pass laws raising taxes on billionaires and limiting campaign spending. Without such measures, Nasaw said, democracy is in a death spiral towards oligarchy. NPR reached out to Musk for comment but received no reply.

Other historians offer a different perspective. Richard White, an emeritus history professor at Stanford, said Musk's power is not unique when viewed through a historical lens. He compared Musk to J.P. Morgan, the dominant banker of the Gilded Age. In 1895, Morgan bailed the U.S. out of a financial crisis. White noted that Morgan viewed himself as a co-partner with government. Once Morgan saved the nation from defaulting on its gold debts, he realized he possessed a great deal of influence.

That influence did not last indefinitely. Morgan merged three major continental railroads into the Northern Securities Company. President Teddy Roosevelt, known as a trust-buster, identified the entity as a monopoly and broke it up. H.W. Brands, a historian at the University of Texas at Austin, said the current debate highlights long-running tensions in American history between democracy and capitalism. Brands noted that democracy is based on equality, specifically the principle of one person, one vote, while capitalism is based on inequality. He argued that capitalism surged ahead of democracy in the late 19th century, creating moguls like Morgan and Carnegie and a huge wealth gap.

Progressives in the early 20th century responded to that era by breaking up trusts and banning corporate donations to candidates. Brands believes the United States is headed for another era of democratic reform after Trump's two terms. Some observers see the country in a second Gilded Age, with tech titans like Musk, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Larry Ellison at the top. White said that if Democrats come to power, Musk could face a tougher environment. He argued that a president and Congress opposed to Musk could break him in a year because SpaceX does not exist without government funding. Democrats are already discussing investigating Musk if they win the House in the upcoming midterms.

Musk responded to these threats on X, his social media platform. He wrote, Live by the sword, die by the sword. He added that those who pick fights with him should understand that he will find out who is really pulling the strings and come for them.

Marian Tupy, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, offered a counterpoint. He said non-conformists like Musk often lead innovative companies that drive economic growth. Tupy views political spending as a constitutional right and opposes campaign spending limits. He argued that wealthy accomplished people may have better views on what makes the American economy grow than the median voter. However, massive spending does not guarantee victory. Musk spent more than $20 million on the Wisconsin Supreme Court race last year, but his candidate lost by 10 percentage points.