My Billionaire is Better than Yours
The Hidden Hands Shaping Our Politics
If you like articles from The Big Con, hit the like button, subscribe, comment, and recommend us in your Substack recommendations. It really helps get the newsletter to more people.
America's political landscape has become a billionaire's playground, where democracy feels increasingly like a luxury brand with select wealthy investors pulling the strings. We've created a system where the average citizen watches from the sidelines as titans of industry and inheritance shape policy through massive financial contributions. Yet we cling to a partisan delusion: our team’s donors are enlightened patriots while the other side's are manipulative opportunists with sinister agendas.
Both major political parties claim to fight for reform. Republicans rally behind Donald Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" of corrupt Washington insiders. Democrats position themselves as the last defense against threats to democracy. Meanwhile, they rake in billions from billionaires and shadowy dark money groups, their influence hidden from view.
How We Got Here: The Citizens United Decision
The Supreme Court's 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling fundamentally reshaped American politics by declaring that political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment. Since then, corporations and unions have been able to spend unlimited funds on political activities as long as they are independent of a party or candidate.
This decision effectively opened the floodgates for wealthy individuals and organizations to pour massive sums into our political system. In 2020, outside groups—such as super PACs, nonprofits, and other independent entities—spent $3.3 billion across federal elections. By 2024, that figure had risen to $4.4 billion, a 33% nominal increase, with spending ramping up earlier and more aggressively than in the previous cycle. By mid-August 2024, outside spending had already hit $1.1 billion—nearly double the $570 million spent at the same point in 2020, despite that election setting a high bar for independent expenditures at the time.
As more money flows into campaigns, Americans worry about its influence. The majority of Americans, regardless of party affiliation, agree that money has a more significant—and mostly negative—impact on politics than ever before. Among liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats, large majorities favor limits on campaign spending and believe that the high cost of campaigning discourages many good candidates from running for president.
Republican Billionaire Backers
The Republican Party has cultivated relationships with several high-profile billionaire donors who provide crucial financial support for campaigns and policy initiatives.
Elon Musk, the world’s wealthiest person, has dramatically shifted from occasionally supporting Democrats to becoming one of Trump’s most vocal and influential backers. His public support includes hosting conversations with Trump on X (formerly Twitter) and committing substantial financial resources to Trump’s campaign. The Musk Foundation is dedicated to promoting renewable energy, crewed space exploration, pediatric care, science and engineering education, and the development of safe artificial intelligence for the benefit of humanity. Musk’s vast business interests in electric vehicles, space exploration, social media, and artificial intelligence all intersect with government regulation, subsidies, and contracts.
Miriam Adelson, who inherited her late husband Sheldon’s casino empire, has become one of the Republican Party’s most generous donors. The Adelsons’ support has often been tied to strong pro-Israel policies. Their casino businesses also benefit from specific tax treatments and regulations that align with Republican policy positions.
Woody Johnson, heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune and owner of the New York Jets, has been a stalwart Republican donor who served as Trump’s ambassador to the United Kingdom. His business interests span healthcare, sports, and international commerce—all areas that are significantly impacted by government policy and international relations.
Beyond individual donors, organizations like Project 2025, a conservative policy blueprint developed by the Heritage Foundation, represent coordinated efforts by wealthy conservative donors to reshape federal government operations—often with limited transparency about who’s funding these initiatives.
Democratic Billionaire Backers
The Democratic Party similarly relies on substantial support from billionaire donors who help finance campaigns and progressive causes.
Through George and Alexander Soros’ Open Society Foundations (OSF), they have been a longstanding Democratic donor focused on promoting democracy, human rights, and progressive policies. Over three decades, OSF has spent over $23 billion, making it the world’s largest private funder of independent groups. The OSF is also known for its controversial funding of nonprofits managed by Arabella Advisors, which serve as incubators and accelerators for a range of left-of-center causes and pro-Palestine NGOs on US campuses.
The Pritzker Family Foundation: Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and his sister Penny (former Commerce Secretary under Obama) have become major Democratic donors and contribute to educational institutions (especially ones attended by J.B. Pritzker), local organizations near properties owned by the couple, and left-of-center organizations, including the Center for American Progress and the New America Foundation. Their wealth derives from the Hyatt hotel chain, and their business interests in hospitality, real estate, and venture capital are affected by various governmental policies on taxation, labor, and regulation.
Through the Gates Foundation and personal giving, Bill Gates supports numerous progressive causes while maintaining a less explicitly partisan profile than some donors. However, his influence in areas like global health, education, and climate policy shapes Democratic policy positions in these domains.
Created by Jennifer Pritzker (a Republican-turned-Democrat and the first transgender billionaire), The Tawani Foundation focuses on military, historical, and LGBTQ+ causes. Her shift between parties demonstrates how billionaire support can evolve based on changing policy priorities.
However, this support does not come without scrutiny.
A Veil of Dark Money
The real issue isn’t necessarily that wealthy individuals support political causes—that’s their right in a free society. It’s the secrecy. Dark money, often funneled through 501(c)(4) "social welfare" groups, hides who’s pulling the levers. Donors like Dick Uihlein, backing conservative outfits, or crypto’s Fairshake PAC, targeting policy niches, thrive in this opacity.
From 2010 to 2020, dark money groups spent over $1 billion to influence elections. That figure surged in subsequent cycles: in 2020, dark money contributions hit $653 million, but by 2024, they exceeded $1 billion—a 53% increase—fueling the record-breaking $4.5 billion in outside spending that year.
This lack of transparency creates an information asymmetry between voters and donors. In 2024, groups like Americans for Prosperity and Majority Forward poured undisclosed funds into the election, amplifying the influence of conservative billionaires like Dick Uihlein. Meanwhile, industry-specific players like the crypto-linked Fairshake PAC emerged, shifting spending from broad ideology to targeted policy goals—a trend less prominent in 2020’s election cycle.
Citizens deserve to know who’s funding the messages they see and the politicians they elect—a transparency crucial for evaluating corruption or undue influence, yet actively thwarted by a system that keeps voters in the dark. This demand spans the political spectrum, requiring even self-proclaimed transparency advocates like the American Sunlight Project, which pushes for government openness, to disclose their own donors to maintain credibility, especially amid scrutiny over their funding secrecy.
During a House Foreign Affairs subcommittee hearing on “The Need for First Amendment Safeguards at the State Department”, Rep. Michael Baumgartner (R., Wash.) questioned Nina Jankowicz, the CEO of the American Sunlight Project (ASP), on the identity of the organization’s donors. Specifically, had the ASP received funding either directly or indirectly from George Soros or his foundations, including the Open Society Foundations?
Jankowicz declined to reveal donors:
I've received a lot of threats for speaking out, and so I've decided that we are going to abide by the rules that other 501(c)(4)s in our country abide by. And we are not required to disclose our donors—small or large—because I frankly don't want them to be threatened the way that I have been.
Baumgartner responded, “So sunlight for other people, but not for your donors.”
Moving on to the other side of the isle, the issue of funding and potential bias was recently highlighted in a House Judiciary Oversight Subcommittee hearing on FBI Fraud, Waste and Abuse, where Representative Henry C. "Hank" Johnson questioned expert witnesses about the financial backing of their organizations. This hearing served as a microcosm of the broader debate surrounding money in politics.
Johnson’s questioning focused on the witnesses’ career trajectories and funding sources, aiming to reveal potential conflicts of interest. He questioned Stewart Whitson, formerly with the Foundation for Government Accountability:
And would it surprise you to know that your funding between 2013 and 2022 [was from] six conservative foundations tied to billionaire donors sunk $44 million into your organization, correct?
When Whitson claimed not to know the precise numbers, Representative Johnson pressed on:
And your largest known source of funding between 2013 and 2022 was a foundation controlled by billion Illinois billionaire Dick Uihlein who invested over $18 million into your operation. And another source of funding was the 85 Fund, which gave you $2 million between 2013 and 2022. It is among the network that is controlled by Leonard Leo, who received over a billion dollars in contributions from a from a single billionaire to fund his continued takeover of our court system.
Johnson directly linked Whitson’s organization to significant funding from conservative billionaires and implied a connection between this funding and specific policy goals. In his concluding remark, Johnson underscored his perspective that the hearing was largely dominated by individuals and organizations promoting a right-wing agenda, often with the backing of wealthy donors.
Both Baumgartner’s and Johnson’s line of questioning exemplifies the concerns about the influence of money in politics. By scrutinizing the funding sources and affiliations of these witnesses, both aimed to expose potential biases and conflicts of interest that could undermine the credibility of their testimony. Whether one agrees with the approach or conclusions, the hearing highlights the ongoing debate about the role of money in shaping public discourse and policy decisions.
How are we ever going to agree on anything if we cannot have fact-based conversations unclouded by the motivations of wealthy backers?
The Partisan Hypocrisy
Both sides engage in remarkable mental gymnastics to justify their billionaire backers while demonizing the other side’s donors. Republicans portray George Soros as a nefarious puppet master while defending Miriam Adelson’s equally large donations as patriotic expression. Democrats criticize Elon Musk’s influence while celebrating Bill Gates’ policy interventions.
The tactics used by both sides are often identical: creating networks of nonprofits to channel money, establishing think tanks to generate policy proposals favorable to donor interests, and funding media outlets that promote donor-friendly narratives. In 2024, conservative groups outspent liberals in outside spending—a reversal from 2020. Yet the playbook remained unchanged: undisclosed funds, targeted campaigns, and partisan cheerleading.
Media outlets, themselves often funded by these same wealthy interests, reinforce partisan narratives about donors. Conservative outlets rarely mention Republican dark money while obsessing over Democratic donors. Progressive outlets do the exact opposite. This selective outrage prevents honest conversation about systemic problems.
The Path Forward
The solution to our billionaire democracy, or oligarchy, isn’t simple, but it starts with acknowledging that the problem transcends partisan lines. Several promising approaches exist:
Constitutional amendments to overturn Citizens United have been proposed, though they face steep hurdles for passage.
Disclosure laws are a faster way to force dark money groups to reveal their donors, allowing voters to follow the money—crucial as it ballooned from $653 million to over $1 billion in four years.
Public financing of campaigns, like in Maine and Arizona, reduces candidate dependence on wealthy donors. Matching small donations with public funds can amplify the voices of regular citizens.
Even without sweeping legislative changes, citizens can demand that candidates refuse support from groups that don’t reveal their funding sources and shift their support to third parties.
We’ve effectively outsourced our democracy to billionaires while convincing ourselves that our team’s wealthy backers are fundamentally different from the other side’s. This partisan blindness prevents us from addressing the structural problems in our campaign finance system—driven by a few ultra-wealthy players hiding behind dark money veils.
Neither party can credibly claim to be fighting corruption or protecting democracy while accepting massive sums through dark money channels. If Trump truly wants to drain the swamp, he must address the unlimited money flowing into politics—including from his own supporters. If Democrats want to protect democracy, they must acknowledge that secretive funding from progressive billionaires undermines transparency just as much as conservative dark money.
The path forward requires looking beyond partisan framing to recognize that genuine democracy demands financial transparency. Regardless of which "billionaire team" you support, demand to know who’s funding the messages you consume and the candidates you elect. Our democratic future depends on it.