When Money Talks: How Corporate Influence Blocks Critical Policy Changes

Writer: Bashir Ba

Editor: Cassandra Torres

I. Introduction

The last two presidential elections have been the most expensive in American history. Billion-dollar corporations and individuals have poured endless dollars into Trump’s, Biden’s, and Harris’ campaigns.¹ In particular, the 2024 election demonstrated that the influence of money can change the rhetoric and policy priorities of even the most stubborn politicians. While the first Trump campaign in 2016 was marked by his independence from donors, following two years of legal battles, Trump desperately needed funding for his 2024 presidential bid. In turn, CEOs like Elon Musk poured millions into the Trump campaign, greatly influencing Trump’s success in this election and his new administration.² Now, in early 2025, a divide has already grown within the Trump administration. Musk has promoted H-1B visas, while the majority of the Trump administration is critical of the visa.³ Twitter feuds have inflamed the two camps, illuminating a great ideological divide between President Trump’s donors and his political advisors. Trump’s supporters voted for him on the premise that he would act on a populist agenda.⁴ But now, Trump has a decision to make during his second term: Will he stay loyal to his populist agenda or succumb to the financial influence of Musk and his Big Tech coalition? This dichotomy exemplifies that while rhetoric, policy, and experience are crucial in politics, monetary contributions still exert a significant influence on policy.

The highly publicized controversy between Musk and President Trump gives the public insight into the power political donations can have. Fifteen years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in favor of Citizens United over the Federal Election Commission (FEC), concluding that corporations have free speech rights and, in turn, can support candidates and political parties.⁵ This case resulted in decreased governance in campaign finance in terms of transparency, spending limits, and enforcement mechanisms.⁶ The current state of regulation for campaign financing as a result of Citizens United v. FEC undermines democratic values by prioritizing corporate interests over the public good, establishing a system where money yields greater influence over politicians and policy than good faith efforts to serve the American public. 

II. Background

Over time, the United States government has made great strides in identifying and curbing the influence of money in politics.⁷ The 1907 Tillman Act⁸ was the first major legislation to attack political corruption, banning direct political donations to federal candidates by corporations and national banks.⁹

In 1971, the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) was signed, and three years later the Federal Election Commission was established. The 1974 amendments to FECA established the FEC as an independent regulatory agency to enforce campaign finance laws.¹⁰ In addition to requiring federal candidates and committees to report their contributions and expenditures, the FEC set a limit on how much individuals could donate to campaigns.¹¹ The most groundbreaking provision of the FECA was its introduction of public financing, where candidates could qualify for matching funds on individual donations of up to $250 each.¹² However, many candidates opted out of this system, making it largely obsolete.¹³

The next major campaign finance reform was the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002. The act targeted soft money, funds raised by political parties that are not subject to federal limits or prohibitions, and electioneering communications.¹⁴ A key provision of the BCRA was its ban on electioneering communications that refer to an identified federal candidate and are publicly distributed within thirty days of a primary or sixty days of a general election.¹⁵ However in 2008 Citizens United, a nonprofit organization, released an unfavorable documentary about a Democratic primary candidate titled Hillary: The Movie. The FEC considered the film to be electioneering and blocked the release of the movie as it was under the sixty day limit.¹⁶ In response, Citizens United sued the FEC, arguing their First Amendment right to free speech had been violated.¹⁷ In a controversial five-to-four decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United and made three crucial changes to campaign finance regulations.¹⁸ First, they legalized corporate-funded electioneering communications right before an election.¹⁹ Second, they authorized corporations and unions to unlimited election spending with the caveat that they do not coordinate directly with candidates.²⁰ The most controversial change was the omission of restrictions on corporate and union independent expenditures, ruling that money is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and corporations are entities with First Amendment rights.²¹

The growth in prominence of super PACs, political action committees that can raise unlimited sums of money, is a direct result of Citizen United.²² In 2022, super PACs were a mechanism for billionaires to dominate politics with just ten mega donors contributing over $1.2 billion to super PACs.²³ Super PACs have become prominent across party lines. In 2024, Musk established and contributed an astonishing approximately $200 million to the conservative America PAC. In 2020, billionaire Tom Steyer donated around $50 million to NextGen America, a liberal super PAC.²⁴

III. Democracy Under the Influence

All of this raises the question: Does this actually influence federal policy? The answer is yes. One place to look is one of America’s most powerful industries—the energy sector. The large oil and energy firms like Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Devon Energy, coupled with trade associations, poured $13,895,000 into the Congressional Leadership Fund (CLF) and Senate Leadership Fund (SLF), conservative super PACs committed to getting Republicans elected into public office.²⁵ The CLF and SLF have contributed to the campaigns of many leaders in the Republican party, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (La.).²⁶ According to FEC filings, the SLF and CLF spent $211 million²⁷ and $216 million²⁸ on independent expenditures, respectively. The immense sway that energy companies have on these super PACs, coupled with the influence these PACs hold on the republican members of Congress, explains why many Republicans vote to undermine progressive climate change action despite overwhelming national support for action. For example, in 2022, the Republican leadership—including Speaker Johnson—supported the Lower Energy Costs Act as a top legislative priority. This bill would repeal the methane emissions tax, lift the Moratorium on Coal Leasing on Public Lands, and allow energy companies to bypass environmental regulations set by the Clean Air Act.²⁹ These provisions benefit energy companies while hurting Americans. Not only do a consensus of climate scientists support stronger regulations, but a majority of Americans do as well. According to the American Lung Association, “At least 65% of voters in every region of the country favor stricter methane standards,” and more Republican voters support significant limits on methane pollution despite the SLF and CLF funding anti-climate change reform advertisements.³⁰ Speaker Johnson has also called renewable sources like solar energy “inefficient sources of energy”³¹ and has passed bills with big cuts for renewable energy sources even though 68% of Louisiana voters are in favor of solar power, according to a poll conducted by Conservatives for Clean Energy.³² This data exemplifies an instance where politicians aligned with the interests of their donors over their constituents on crucial legislation.

Many supporters of Citizens United state that the decision’s provision to disallow any coordination between super PACs and the campaign is adequate protection from corruption. However, there are no effective mechanisms to actually prevent coordination between a campaign and a PAC. One common workaround is for campaigns to post their messages on their website, often outlining key points they want voters to focus on. Because this is public knowledge, super PACs play advertisements with the intended message without ever coordinating with the candidate that they are supporting.³³ The provision that bans coordination between PACs and candidates is a good faith effort to limit corruption; however, it lacks the means to locate and punish violations of this rule.

V. Conclusion

The foundation of our democracy is built on the principle of “one person, one vote,” and that individuals cannot buy more influence than that. Corporations and the ultra wealthy have proven that, given the chance, they will use politics to improve profits even if it means going against the interests of the American people. The United States has long prided itself on being a true democracy, not governed by a few elites but by its people. During the Industrial Revolution, the sanctity of our democratic process was under siege, prompting action over the next century as landmark reforms from the Tillman Act to the BCRA were passed. Yet, in the wake of Citizens United, the sacredness of our democracy is once again in jeopardy. It is imperative to act in stride to realize the great American dream of a government that is truly of, by, and for the people—not one bought and sold to the highest bidder.

1. Sarah Bryner & Brendan Glavin, Total 2024 Election Spending Projected to Exceed Previous Record, Open Secrets (Oct. 2024), opensecrets.org/news/2024/10/total-2024-election-spending-projected-to-exceed-previous-record. ↩︎
2. Adav Noti, Have Wealthy Donors Bought the Trump Administration?, Campaign Legal Ctr. (Feb. 2025), campaignlegal.org/update/have-wealthy-donors-bought-trump-administration. ↩︎
3. Mike Wendling, Trump Sides with Tech Bosses in Maga Fight Over Immigrant Visas, BBC News (Dec. 2024), bbc.com/news/articles/clyv7gxp02yo. ↩︎
4. Adam Volle, MAGA Movement, Britannica (Feb. 2025), britannica.com/topic/MAGA-movement. ↩︎
5. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). ↩︎
6. Daniel I. Weiner & Tim Lau, Citizens United Explained, Brennan Ctr. Just. (Jan. 2025), brennancenter.org/
   our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained. ↩︎
7. OpenSecrets, Money-in-Politics Timeline, opensecrets.org/resources/learn/timeline. ↩︎
8. The Tillman Act, 34 Stat. 864 (1907) (repealed by the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, 43 Stat. 1074 (1925)). ↩︎
9. Frank M. Reilly, Campaign Finance: A History, Related Laws, And Impact On Running For Congress, Constituting Am., constitutingamerica.org/campaign-finance-history-related-laws-impact-running-for-congress-
   guest-essayist-honorable-frank-m-reilly. ↩︎
10. Fed. Election Comm’n, Mission and History, fec.gov/about/mission-and-history. ↩︎
11. Fed. Election Comm’n, Contribution Limits, fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-
    receipts/contribution-limits. ↩︎
12. Fed. Election Comm’n, Public Funding of Presidential Elections, fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/
    understanding-ways-support-federal-candidates/presidential-elections/public-funding-presidential-elections. ↩︎
13. USAGov, Federal Campaign Finance Laws (Oct. 2024), usa.gov/campaign-finance-laws. ↩︎
14. McConnell v. FEC, 540 U.S. 93 (2003). ↩︎
15. Id. ↩︎
16. Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010). ↩︎
17. Id. ↩︎
18. Id. ↩︎
19. Id. ↩︎
20. Brian Duignan, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, Britannica (Mar. 2025), britannica.com/
    event/Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission. ↩︎
21. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 310. ↩︎
22. Open Secrets, Super PACs (Mar. 2025), opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/super-pacs/2022. ↩︎
23. Connor Donevan et al., The Influence of Super PACs and Dark Money on This Year’s Campaigns, Nat’l Pub. Radio (Nov. 2024), npr.org/2024/11/05/nx-s1-5175799/the-influence-of-super-pacs-and-dark-money-on-this-years-campaigns. ↩︎
24. Susan Milligan, Biden Scores $45M Commitment From Steyer-Backed Youth Voter Group, U.S. News & World Reps. (May 2020), usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-05-27/biden-scores-45m-commitment-from-steyer-backed-youth-voter-group#google_vignette. ↩︎
25. Donald Shaw, Oil and Gas Companies Donate Big to GOP Super PACs, Sludge (Feb. 2024), readsludge.com/
    2024/02/01/oil-and-gas-companies-donate-big-to-gop-super-pacs. ↩︎
26. Id. ↩︎
27. Federal Election Comm’n, Financial Summary for Senate Leadership Fund, C00571703 (Dec. 2024), fec.gov/data/committee/C00571703. ↩︎
28. Open Secrets, PAC Profile: Congressional Leadership Fund (Mar. 2025), opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/C00504530/summary/2024. ↩︎
29. Rachel Frazin & Zack Budryk, House GOP Passes Energy, Water Funding Bill, The Hill (Oct. 2023), thehill.com/newsletters/energy-environment/4278623-house-gop-passes-energy-water-funding-bill. ↩︎
30. Allison MacMunn, Americans Strongly Favor Methane Limits, Am. Lung Ass’n (Sept. 2015), lung.org/media/
    press-releases/americans-strongly-favor-methane-limits. ↩︎
31. Delaney Nolan, New House Speaker Mike Johnson Holds Extreme Views on Climate Change, Science, La. Illuminator (Oct. 2023), lailluminator.com/2023/10/31/mike-johnson-extreme. ↩︎
32. Brock McCleary, Conservatives for Clean Energy, Louisiana Voters on Clean Energy and Consumer Choice 1 (2025). ↩︎
33. Saurav Ghosh & Eric Kashdan, Voters Need to Know What Redboxing is and How It Undermines Democracy, Campaign Legal Ctr. (Mar. 2025), campaignlegal.org/update/voters-need-know-what-redboxing-and-
    how-it-undermines-democracy. ↩︎

Featured image courtesy of: Illustration of someone throwing money in front of the U.S. Capitol Building, in Frank Evelhoch II, Even Founding Fathers had concerns about corporate cash and influence, Penn Live Patriot News (Jan. 2012), pennlive.com/editorials/2012/01/even_founding_fathers_had_conc.html.