Matt Gurney: Elon Musk has spent nearly half a billion dollars swaying the U.S. midterms. Politics isn’t the only reason he should stop - Toronto Star
Musk's involvement in politics seems to also be hurting him.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk has spent hundreds of millions trying to push Republican candidates. But, writes Matt Gurney, it may be helping Musk far less than he thinks.
Matt Gurney is a Toronto-based journalist, broadcaster and freelance contributing columnist for the Star. Reach him via email: matt@readtheline.ca
In general, so long as it’s legal and not hurting anyone, I think people should be allowed to spend their money on what they want to spend it on. But how much money should be allowed to affect the democratic process sits uncomfortably alongside that preference of mine. A system in which everyone has one vote, but one person can, as Elon Musk just did, spend almost a half-billion dollars pursuing his preferred outcome, is not a fair system. And weirdly, it might not even be one that is particularly in Musk’s interest.
Spending limits on political donations aren’t new. They’ve been the law in Canada for years. They’re not even controversial in the United States, where donations to individual campaigns are also capped. The difference in the U.S. is that since organizations known as super PACs have no limits on their spending, Musk and other high-net-worth individuals can simply donate large sums to these organizations, which are free to pursue whatever political agenda they wish, so long as their spending is independent of and not co-ordinated with an individual candidate’s campaign. For example, Musk or anyone else could only donate a few thousand bucks to John Smith’s House campaign, but he can spend $100 million to create a “Elect John Smith” super PAC, so long as said committee doesn’t co-ordinate with the Smith campaign.
The status quo in the United States emerged from the controversial Citizens United Supreme Court ruling of 2010 and subsequent court decisions, which ultimately allowed super PACs to raise and spend unlimited sums. Many Americans themselves continue to think that this is ridiculous. But this is a matter of U.S. law, and a Canadian columnist has no say there. I think it’s bad, but my opinion has yet to be acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court, much to my displeasure.
All I can really do as an outside observer is suggest that maybe the way of addressing this is by creating a dramatically expanded donation ceiling for any given year. Hypothetically, imagine saying that the United States would allow any given individual, or proxies or organizations under their control or influence, to donate up to $10 million a year, total. But then leave it up to that individual to decide how to allot that $10 million.
I’m just spitballing. It’s not my country. The outsized power of certain individuals and interests in American politics is something the Americans have to figure out for themselves, and I hope it’s something they do, since the rest of us live downstream of their failure to do so.
But in the meantime, maybe I can make a different case. Musk’s heavy involvement in politics is not to his long-term advantage.
Musk is unabashedly a supporter of the right wing in America. He supports it with his donations, but also through his personal statements. But individual consumers and entire nation-states are turned off by his politics, and also by the actions he has taken in pursuing them.
Look at the recent controversy over Musk’s decision to limit how Ukraine is able to use SpaceX satellites in their war against Russia. Literally every country in the world that does any kind of business with Musk has just been handed a really big reason to migrate their critical needs off of SpaceX technology as quickly as possible. It was no coincidence that increased co-operation in the realm of satellite communications was something Canada and Europe included in the announcement of their expanded alliance just last week. Even U.S. writers are warning that SpaceX must be nationalized lest it become too powerful.
Musk is allowed to be a political activist. But the rest of us, whether as individuals or as nation states, still have the right to choose with whom to do business. Sooner or later, Musk may have to pick between activist or entrepreneur.
If the Democrats do indeed win big today, and Musk suddenly finds himself under investigation by Congress, I wouldn’t be shocked if he suddenly decides that maybe business and entrepreneurship is truly the best possible use of his time. We might all be better off in that case.
Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request.
There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again.
You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply.
Opinion articles are based on the author’s interpretations and judgments of facts, data and events. More details
Matt Gurney is a Toronto-based journalist, broadcaster and freelance contributing columnist for the Star. Reach him via email: matt@readtheline.ca
