For Sale: Democracy—How Big Money Undermines American Elections
America takes pride in its democratic ideals, yet the growing influence of wealthy donors in elections poses serious questions about the integrity of our political system. "We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob" (Roosevelt, as cited in CivicEd, n.d.). The recent Wisconsin Supreme Court race, overwhelmed by unprecedented contributions from billionaires like Elon Musk, demonstrates how vast financial power can eclipse the voices of average voters. As money floods into judicial races and other pivotal elections, the core principle of "one person, one vote" seems increasingly fragile. Grasping how we reached this point—and how we can reclaim democracy from affluent interests—is now more critical than ever.
FEDERAL GOVERNMENTDEMOCRACYSTATE & LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Dr. Shawn Granger
3/20/20254 min read
In the heart of America's Dairyland, a judicial election has become emblematic of a broader national issue: the corrosive influence of money on democracy. The Wisconsin Supreme Court race between Republican-backed Brad Schimel and Democrat-supported Susan Crawford has shattered spending records, with donations from billionaires like Elon Musk and George Soros dominating the financial landscape. This influx of cash raises critical questions about the integrity of the democratic process and whether the voices of ordinary constituents are being overshadowed by the interests of the ultra-wealthy.
The Wisconsin Supreme Court Race: A Case Study
Historically, judicial elections in Wisconsin were modest affairs, concentrating on local issues and candidates' qualifications. However, the 2025 Supreme Court race has evolved into a national battleground, drawing unprecedented attention and funding. The stakes are certainly high: the court's ideological balance could sway decisions on abortion rights, legislative redistricting, and election laws—issues with significant national implications. "The corrupting influence of billionaires in law enforcement is a serious concern" (Bedoya, as cited in The Verge, n.d.).
Elon Musk, the world's richest person and a close advisor to President Trump, has invested millions to support Schimel's campaign through his political action committee (PAC), Building America's Future. This PAC has encouraged Schimel to adopt a Trump-aligned strategy to energize supporters. Currently, Schimel is trailing Crawford by 48% to 43%, and has embraced this tactic, aligning closely with Trump's policies (Gonzalez, 2025).
On the other hand, Democratic megadonor George Soros and Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker have made significant contributions to support Crawford's campaign. This financial competition has driven total spending to an estimated $100 million, making it the most expensive judicial election in U.S. history (Dirr & Bice, 2025).
Distorting the Democratic Process
The influx of cash from billionaires has raised concerns about the distortion of the democratic process. When a single individual can inject millions into a campaign, the principle of "one person, one vote" is undermined. Voters may wonder whether elected officials are accountable to their constituents or to their wealthy benefactors.
Critics contend that such large contributions can lead to conflicts of interest. For example, if cases involving Musk's business interests were to reach the Wisconsin Supreme Court, questions about Schimel's impartiality could emerge, considering Musk's significant financial backing. This situation undermines public trust in the judiciary's independence and fairness."Corruption is a cancer: a cancer that eats away at a citizen's faith in democracy, diminishes the instinct for innovation and creativity" (Biden, as cited in Voices for Transparency, n.d.).
A Historical Perspective on Campaign Finance Reform
The struggle to regulate money in politics is not new. In 1907, the Tillman Act prohibited corporations and national banks from contributing to federal campaigns. Subsequent legislation, such as the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1971, aimed to increase transparency and establish contribution limits. The creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC) in 1974 sought to enforce these regulations (Federal Election Campaign Act, n.d.).
Court decisions have continually reshaped the campaign finance landscape. The landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC permitted corporations and unions to spend unlimited funds on independent political expenditures, fundamentally altering the dynamics of electoral campaigns (Mutch, 2014). "Members of Congress are dependent upon funding from large donors, leading to a system that is 'legal but corrupt'" (Lessig, as cited in Wikipedia, n.d.).
The Path Ahead: Possible Reforms
To reduce the impact of money in politics, several reforms have been suggested:
Public Financing of Campaigns: Implementing systems that provide public funds to candidates for their campaigns in return for adhering to strict spending limits. This strategy seeks to lessen candidates' dependence on wealthy donors.
Enhanced Disclosure Requirements: Requiring immediate disclosure of all political contributions and expenditures to boost transparency and enable voters to understand who is financing campaigns.
Contribution Limits: Establishing lower limits on contributions from individuals and PACs to candidates and parties to prevent undue influence from any single donor.
Overturn Citizens United: Pursue a constitutional amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision, allowing for stricter regulation of corporate and union spending in elections.
Conclusion
The Wisconsin Supreme Court race illustrates the significant influence of money on the democratic process. As billionaires exercise their financial power to influence elections, the voices of ordinary citizens risk being eclipsed. "Extreme wealth concentration threatens democracy, eroding trust in our institutions" (Patriotic Millionaires, as cited in The Guardian, 2025). Tackling this issue necessitates thorough campaign finance reform to ensure that democracy remains a system where every vote carries equal weight and elected officials are accountable to all their constituents, not just the wealthiest among them.
References
CivicEd. (n.d.). Quotations about democracy. Center for Civic Education. Retrieved March 20, 2025, from https://www.civiced.org/quotations-about-democracy
Dirr, A., & Bice, D. (2025, March 17). Wisconsin Supreme Court election headed for record-smashing spending of $100 million. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/03/17/wisconsin-supreme-court-headed-for-record-smashing-spending-levels/82414645007/
Federal Election Campaign Act. (n.d.). In Wikipedia. Retrieved March 20, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Campaign_Act
Gonzalez, O. (2025, March 20). Exclusive: Elon Musk group's playbook in Wisconsin's court race. Axios. https://www.axios.com/2025/03/20/elon-musk-pac-wisconsin-supreme-court
Lessig, L. (n.d.). Republic, lost: How money corrupts Congress—and a plan to stop it. Wikipedia. Retrieved March 20, 2025, from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic%2C_Lost
Mutch, R. E. (2014). Buying the vote: A history of campaign finance reform. Oxford University Press.
Patriotic Millionaires. (2025, January 22). Influence of super-rich on Donald Trump threatens democracy, say patriotic millionaires. The Guardian. Retrieved March 20, 2025, from https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/22/influence-of-super-rich-on-donald-trump-threatens-democracy-say-patriotic-millionaires
Transparency International. (n.d.). 10 quotes about corruption and transparency to inspire you. Voices Transparency. Retrieved March 20, 2025, from https://voices.transparency.org/10-quotes-about-corruption-and-transparency-to-inspire-you-cd107d594148
The Verge. (n.d.). Democratic FTC commissioner warns of billionaires’ influence on democracy. Retrieved March 20, 2025, from https://www.theverge.com/news/632944/democratic-ftc-commissioner-alvaro-bedoya-tech-billionaires-trump