When the wealthiest person in the
world and the President of the United States cross swords, people are bound to
notice. Such a very public clash between billionaires, one of whom is the most
politically powerful person in the U.S., should not lead the rest of us to
infer that the interests of large corporations and the U.S. Government,
including the respective executives and elected representatives, typically
conflict. Corporate and individual mega-donations to political campaigns, the proverbial
“revolving door” between working in government and at a corporation, the reliance
of regulatory agencies on information from the regulated companies invite the
exploit of conflicts of interest such that legislation and regulations are even
written by corporate lawyers for their respective companies’ financial
interest. Furthermore, that many very large American-based corporations have
interlocking boards of directors gives corporate America considerable unified
force in seeing to it that Congress and the federal president remain friendly
to business interests. That both benefit from the status quo and have de jure
or de facto vetoes of reform proposals reinforces the staying power of the club.
Even as U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders enjoyed considerable media attention and
crowds in his speaking tour against oligopoly (i.e., consolidation within an
industry such that companies can set prices at will and can thus extract extra
profit beyond that which would accrue in a competitive market), it would be
wildly optimistic to hope for an onslaught of anti-trust enforcement from a
Republican or Democratic administration.
Even though U.S. President Trump
claimed in early June, 2025, that he had told Elon Musk to leave the
Administration because Musk was “wearing thin,” and Secretary of State Rubio
would doubtless attest to that, it should not be forgotten that Musk had spent
more than $250 million “helping President Donald Trump win a second White House
term.”[1]
Musk “also spent more than $19 million in the final weeks of the 2024 election
cycle to help Republicans win narrow majorities in Congress.”[2]
Even though Musk was the richest person in the world at the time, to spend so
much money and yet be inattentive to how his companies could benefit from
government contracts and electric-car subsidies defies human nature. Indeed,
even though Musk denied opposing Trump’s tax and government spending “Big
Beautiful Bill” because of the cuts to EV subsidies, Trump had a point that the
negative financial impact on Tesla was not a point in the bill’s favor to Musk.
To be sure, Musk’s complaint about too much “pork” and thus deficit spending being
major problems in the bill that the U.S. House had recently passed by a single
vote is valid. Nevertheless, lest it be assumed that a dispute on public policy
between two billionaires is in the interest of the poor and middle-class, Musk
registered no complaint about the cuts to Medicaid, which finances healthcare
for the poor who cannot afford private health-insurance, and food assistance
for the poor.
Even in the midst of an argument
between billionaires in business and government, we cannot assume that the
conflict of political-economic interests among the elite results in the
enactment of public policy that is in the public interest. In Trump’s bill, for
example, even though less money would subsidize electric vehicles, there were no
reductions of subsidies in the bill that passed the House for coal and oil
companies. The grip of those companies in Congress and the Trump Administration
could be assumed to be tight in spite of the global average temperature having reached
1.5C degrees, which the Paris Accord of 2016 set as a threshold. The cozy
relationship amid climate change puts in stark relief the distinction between
private interests and the public interest.
When asked at the Qatar Economic
Forum in 2025 whether he would continue making political donations as he had in
2024, Musk replied, “I think I’ve done enough.”[3]
It should not be missed that he added, “Well, if I see a reason to do political
spending in the future, I will do it.”[4]
It would be of value to the American political economy if he would do contribute
to political campaigns aimed at breaking up the cosy relationship that CEO’s and
(and the corporations) have with elected officials and regulators at both the
state and federal systems of government in the U.S.; by “breaking up,” I mean
something more substantial and structural than barring government officials and
employees from being hired by corporations that have benefitted from the work
of the officials and employees.
Instead, I recommend a return to
competitive markets and even possibly limiting political-campaign contributions
of corporations and the ultra-rich, for the financial influence of large
concentrations of wealth on elected officials and appointees tilts the political
economy away from being oriented to the public interest, which is not arrived
at by the entanglement of certain powerful private interests. To be sure, going
so far as trying to eliminate the gravitas of wealth politically would be
utopian and thus a fool’s errand, but public policy could be formulated and
enacted that is aimed at reversing or countering at least some of the
self-interested tilt of the American political economy that so benefits members
of the club—Trump and Musk included. Nor is Socialism necessarily the answer to
protecting the poor and middle-class from the self-interested endeavors of the
interlaced economic and political elites, for Adam Smith’s invisible hand can
do wonders to regulate price if only competition is restored to oligopolistic industries,
which includes even social-media companies.
Trump’s threat to cut off Musk’s
SpaceX from government contracts and Musk’s acknowledgement that he might make
sizable political donations even though he was disappointed in Trump’s bill for
its pork and probable significant addition to the U.S. federal debt indicate
that politicians have considerable discretion being able to benefit companies financially
and that CEO’s can make use of such discretion by legally paying off political
candidates and those office-holders who are up for re-election and would all
too easy exploit a personal conflict of interest by bending public duty to private
campaign-interest. Using ambition to check ambition is part of the genius of
the American political system of checks and balances, but as the ambitions are
solely among the wealthy, it cannot be assumed that the public interest is
necessarily being served by the resulting public policies, for collusion even
between contending ambitions does indeed exist even if the publicly-aired arguments
among the elite of the political economy are more titillating.
2. Ibid.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
