title: Elon Musk May Have Just Found a Way to Buy Our Elections

First Elon Musk seized control of the federal bureaucracy and broke it. Then he commandeered the campaign of the conservative Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate Brad Schimel and tanked it.

Elon Musk's extraordinary intervention in the Trump administration, unveiled in a recent New York Times article, has sparked discussion about the role of big donors in politics.

As the article highlights, Musk's vast wealth and willingness to spend heavily on political causes are undeniable. However, the article also notes that, despite contributing nearly $1 million to a joint fund-raising committee for Trump's re-election and over $250 million in super PAC spending, Musk prefers not to donate directly to candidates. Instead, he focuses on funding organizations that support candidates indirectly.

This strategy allows Musk to exert influence over a broad range of political activity without tying himself to specific candidates. While super PACs cannot coordinate directly with candidates, they can spend independently to support or oppose them. In essence, super PACs act as intermediaries, amplifying the voice of big donors.

The article further mentions that Musk's contributions to joint fund-raising committees were made with the understanding that they would be used to support Trump's candidacy. Joint fund-raising committees are formed by candidates, political parties, and political action committees to pool contributions and support common political goals.

However, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) failed to enforce a 1971 law that prohibits joint fund-raising committees from coordinating on how contributions are spent. This omission, in effect, permits the mega-rich to directly command candidates' campaigns and advise on how campaign funds are utilized.

This non-ruling, which slipped past most news outlets and came too late in the race to influence the outcome, could drastically transform the 2026 midterms.

Joint fund-raising committees are meant to allow candidates, parties, and PACs to jointly fund-raise but not jointly spend. Yet, in 2024, Republican candidates began running ads backed by joint fund-raising committee money, claiming that such ads were just fund-raising appeals.

Democrats asked the FEC to intervene, but the commissioners, evenly split between Republicans and Democrats, deadlocked. As it stands, nothing is preventing major donors from using joint fund-raising committees to closely cooperate with candidates.

This represents a significant shift in campaign finance. Back in 2010, when the Supreme Court ruled that PACs that do not donate to candidates but spend independently to support them can collect unlimited sums, many viewed it as a threat to American democracy.

But those fears were largely exaggerated. For instance, despite rumors of super PACs bankrupting candidates, it's noteworthy that in the 2024 campaign, all three candidates who withdrew—Larry Hogan, Vivek Ramaswamy, and Tim Scott—were financially strong and had formidable super PAC support.

Moreover, because of a provision in a 1971 campaign finance law, super PACs must pay higher rates for TV ads than candidates' campaigns do in swing states. This factor, along with the ease of small-dollar online giving to candidates, meant that super PACs never had as much impact as they were expected to.

Small donors also played a major role in the 2024 campaign. According to FEC data, in each of the past three presidential elections with Trump as the Republican nominee, the Democratic candidate has received far more money from contributions of $200 or less than Trump: 2.5 times more in 2016, 1.4 times more in 2020, and 3.3 times more in 2024.

With Democrats benefiting from small-donor contributions and super PACs facing disadvantages in ad rates, Republicans saw an opportunity in bending the rules of joint fund-raising committees.

Jon Berkon of the Elias Law Group, which often represents the Democratic Party in litigation, explained that joint fund-raising committees get the lowest unit rate for ads, the same as candidates, which is a huge advantage. Super PACs have to pay the regular rate, which can be three to five times higher in swing states during high-volume ad periods.

Berkon argued that broadening the power of joint fund-raising committees will fundamentally change the orientation of candidates, placing even greater emphasis on the need to raise funds from larger sources.

This shift could have implications for policy outcomes. For instance, in 2024, the cryptocurrency magnates Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss gave approximately $2 million in bitcoin to Trump's joint fund-raising committee, tying the contribution to Trump's pledge to put an end to the Biden administration's war on crypto.

This joint fund-raising committee covered about $5 million in online ad costs for the Trump campaign. After Trump took office, Gary Gensler, the chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission and an advocate for crypto regulation, was fired.

However, Musk's disturbing role in the White House may be more indicative of the future. The world's richest man, with a net worth of nearly $300 billion, gained access to Trump'