The word democracy comes from the Greek word dēmokratia, derived from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”), and therefore means rule by the people.
It comprises a set of values, mainly people’s ability to choose lawmakers who represent them freely and to make decisions voluntarily, depending on their preferences, through voting. Duly elected officials are then obliged to consider their constituents’ concerns and welfare in making political decisions.
Let’s focus on the nation that has declared itself to be the global leader of democracy in the world today. Do US citizens choose their political candidates freely, or are their decisions constricted by the limitless funding of those candidates by various sponsors? Are US voters free to choose their preferred candidates, or are they coerced into selecting the flashiest and most advertised ones?
Once an electoral race ends, are the financial backers rewarded? Let’s go back to the fundamental question: is democracy an illusion?
Australian academic Daniel Nyberg has explained how corporate political activity today “corrupts the democratic process,” as wealth supported by business interests is undermining Western liberal democracies.
The efforts made by corporate wealth in elections are intended to influence government policy while disregarding voters' rights. In essence, it is an abuse of democracy.
Before any electoral race, candidates in many countries around the world today must raise substantial funds to support their campaigns. It is almost guaranteed that the candidate who spends the most will ultimately win, as wealthy donors use their power to manipulate the media with polarising advertisements that shift voters’ perceptions. A total of over $5 billion was raised to promote the candidates in the 2024 US presidential elections.
Once the supported candidate wins, he will remain indebted to the donors who financed his election. According to commentator Mehdi Alevi writing on the Website Fair Observer, politicians “choose to serve not the people who voted them into power, but the financiers who made their election to office a reality.”
In the US, a commotion occurred recently during the Wisconsin Supreme Court election when around $70 million was spent on advertising for the Republican Party candidate, Brad Schimel. Notably, Elon Musk, owner of Tesla and the social platform X, as well as several other enterprises, spent $21 million on the race.
It ended up as the most expensive judicial race in US history. In his campaign to support the conservative candidate for the State Supreme Court seat, Musk handed cheques for $1 million (Yes, you read that right!) to two Wisconsin voters who had pledged to elect the Republican candidate.
Partisan influences and significant financial contributions dominated this race. However, Susan Crawford, Schimel’s opponent, who ultimately won the race despite her opponent’s spending, said that “Wisconsinites fended off an unprecedented attack on our democracy, our fair elections, and our Supreme Court, and Wisconsin stood up and said loudly that justice does not have a price. Our courts are not for sale.”
Democracy is also at stake when US Supreme Court judges, who are supposed to be non-partisan and not aligned with either Party, back either the Democrats or the Republicans, leaving regular citizens out of the equation. Democrat judges back Democrat decisions, and Republican judges back Republican ones. They often vote predictably along the lines of such preferences, leaving impartiality, and hence democracy, in the dust.
Ultimately, the rich control US politicians. Affluent donors have an excessive amount of influence over government, and under the second Trump administration, this has become particularly clear.
During the 2024 US presidential race, 48 per cent ($481 million) of donations to Trump’s campaign came from only ten billionaires. During his subsequent inauguration, seats usually reserved by family members and past US presidents were occupied by some of the wealthiest men in the world.
“The inaugural display highlights the unusually direct role the world’s wealthiest people will likely have in the new Administration,” wrote Ali Swensen of the Associated Press. “In his outgoing address, [former President Joe] Biden warned that the US was becoming an oligarchy of tech billionaires wielding dangerous levels of power and influence on the nation.”
Musk donated approximately $300 million to Trump’s presidential campaign, and his investment assured him financial gain and major clout. Once Trump was elected, he announced the appointment of Musk as his senior advisor and the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a White House team tasked with cutting federal spending.
Musk can now “dismantle government bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure federal agencies,” Trump said. Without a doubt, this is a role that will give Musk influence over policies that may benefit him personally. Today, he is reaping the benefits of his contributions, advancing his personal interests, even if it comes at the cost of the average US citizen.
Another case in point is the late Sheldon Adelson, Trump’s largest donor in the 2016 ($25 million) and 2020 ($45 million) elections. In 2024, Adelson’s wife, Miriam Adelson, gave the Trump campaign $100 million. Adelson was a megadonor to Republican Party candidates in general, a major supporter of Israel, and a Las Vegas casino magnate. He was also a manipulative force in many of the decisions that Trump made.
The support of the Adelson family left Trump and other Republican lawmakers indebted to them. When payback time occurred, Trump moved the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem to appease the staunchly pro-Israeli Sheldon Adelson, and, in 2018, Miriam Adelson received the US Medal of Freedom. Undoubtedly, Trump will remain duty-bound and grateful to this pro-Israel family, affecting his governance and rulings. This may not benefit other American citizens, but payback time is due.
These are only a few examples of the oligarchy that currently presides over the US Government and guides its decisions to their benefit.
Even in the best scenario, a Government whose power is controlled by a small group of wealthy constituents will favour one group over another, marginalise certain groups, and prohibit equal opportunities. Without proper ethical standards in place to ensure equal opportunity and constitutional rights for all citizens, democracy becomes jaded and loses its solid foundation.
Short link: