94Ha Viewpoint
After several twists and turns in the U.S. Congress, the Senate and the House of Representatives finally passed the short-term spending bill with a high vote, avoiding the federal government from shutting down due to lack of funds at the last minute. However, the richest man Musk opposed the more than 1,500-page first version of the bill through the X platform, forcing members of both parties to compromise and approve the clean new version of the bill with only more than 100 pages, which triggered public controversy about the super-rich interfering in politics. The angry Democrats even accused the unelected Musk of being the “real president” for influencing legislation. Although public opinion is divided, there are views that support Musk, who believes that he exposed the secret operations behind congressional legislation and let voters see the unreasonable content in the bill, which led to the majority of members of Congress giving in under pressure from public opinion.
Levitt, who was nominated by President-elect Trump as White House press secretary, refuted the Democratic Party’s accusation, saying that Trump, not Musk, was the driving force behind the bill amendment, but still failed to quell the controversy. Trump, who likes the spotlight of public opinion, remains silent on the passage of the bill. The legislative process was full of twists and turns because Trump proposed amendments to repeal the debt ceiling clause, but was strongly opposed by 38 Republican congressmen, and the new bill did not adopt his suggestions in the end. Trump appointed Musk to be responsible for government efficiency, including making suggestions on reducing government budget waste. Therefore, the short-term spending bill controversy can be seen as Musk’s first shot before he took office. Many conventional practices in Congress may have to be reformed in the future.
Critics describe Musk’s high-profile involvement in the short-term spending bill struggle as the best example of wealthy people interfering in politics. Since the Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that corporate donations to candidates are within the scope of freedom of speech in the First Amendment of the Constitution, the practice of wealthy people publicly using huge sums of money to support candidates to influence politics has become the norm in American politics. Opponents believe that the ruling violates the spirit of democracy. Trump was a billionaire before he entered politics, and his cabinet has also appointed several billionaires, such as Specter as Secretary of the Treasury, Lutnick as Secretary of Commerce, and Nunes as Chairman of the Intelligence Advisory Committee. After Trump won the election, executives from global electronic payment giant Visa, Facebook’s parent company Meta, Goldman Sachs, Amazon and other companies all sought to meet with him.
But rich people’s intervention in politics is not always successful. According to Forbes, in this presidential election, 52 billionaires supported Trump; 83 billionaires supported the defeated Democratic candidate Harris. Of course, donating to support a specific candidate is different from openly interfering in politics. But unlike private transactions behind the scenes, Musk is performing publicly in front of the stage. But this also makes his political actions collectively scrutinized by public opinion. This open and transparent approach has made Musk gain unexpected credibility, because everything he does must stand up to the test of public opinion. So he has repeatedly raised the banner of maintaining freedom of speech. Except for the mainstream media, public opinion seems to be more praise than criticism.
Although Musk has a strong influence on public opinion due to his purchase of the X platform, his opposition to the initial version of the short-term spending bill is well-founded, especially pointing out the waste and unreasonableness in it, such as exposing the clauses for salary increase for members of the legislature and the privilege clauses for exempting members of the legislature from evidence search and investigation, which caused an uproar in public opinion. A large number of voters put pressure on members of their constituencies, which led to the House of Representatives passing the revised bill with 366 votes in favor and 34 against; the Senate subsequently passed the revised bill with 85 votes in favor and 11 against, showing that the transparency brought by freedom of speech and the implementation of voters’ right to know, rather than just huge amounts of money, can make public opinion reflected in the bill. Musk’s rich intervention in politics in this way is paradoxically closer to the spirit of democracy.
At present, the gap between the rich and the poor in various countries in the world is becoming increasingly serious, and the hatred of the rich is growing on a large scale. Naturally, the people are strongly dissatisfied with the rich interfering in politics. But the populism represented by Trump, which wants to “drain the corruption of the Washington swamp”, is not completely without factual basis. Unlike the president, members of the U.S. Congress have no term limits, and many senior members have formed a symbiotic relationship with the congressional lobbying groups of large companies. There have been constant accusations that members of Congress have abused their power to enrich themselves. Pelosi, the former Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives, has the indecent title of “Capitol Hill Stock God”, and rumors about her insider trading have never stopped. President Biden of the same party has just expressed his support for legislation to prohibit members from buying and selling stocks.
The relationship between money and power has always been a challenge that modern democracy must face. Especially now that voters increasingly distrust the elites of the system, the intervention or participation of the rich in politics will inevitably conflict with populist sentiment. But this does not mean that democratic politics is useless. The example of “Musk’s intervention in politics” shows that if it is based on the interests of the people, whether rich or not, it can be affirmed by public opinion – influential rich people will certainly get twice the result with half the effort. Another lesson is that the political transparency brought about by the criticism of current ills supported by freedom of speech can also help correct institutional corruption. This series of contradictions is bound to become more prominent in many democratic countries in the future.
