The Musk of Politics
- WULR Team
- Feb 27, 2025
- 4 min read
Examining the Legal Implications of Elon Musk’s Political Influence
Published February 27 2025
Analysis by Leo Xiao
As former President Donald Trump retakes office, many in the political sphere have turned their gaze to the returning president’s allies and what role they might play in his administration. One of the most fascinating individuals is the multi-billionaire mogul, Elon Musk. While wealth has always played a role in the American political system, the entrance of figures like Elon Musk, who wields unprecedented influence over both the regulated field of artificial intelligence and new frontier technology, means the potential for conflicts of interest and questions of legal boundaries have never been greater. With a potential government appointment and possible participation in peace talks between Russia and Ukraine, a question arises: how does the legal system view the political power of billionaires, and what mechanisms have historically been established to check this influence?
Historically, wealthy figures have always played a part in political office or influenced political outcomes in the United States, shaping policies and elections. In the early 20th century, figures like railroad magnate Leland Stanford and oil tycoon John D. Rockefeller held tremendous political sway (1). In more recent decades, billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Donald Trump have entered the political sphere, not just as donors or influencers but as candidates. Bloomberg, the former mayor of New York City, self-funded his political campaigns, spending hundreds of millions of dollars in his 2020 presidential run alone (2). With the Supreme Court’s 2010 5–4 decision in Citizens United v. FEC, the power of the wealthy was further amplified, allowing corporations and individuals to spend unlimited amounts on campaign advertising (3). Many argue this decision widened the political gap between wealthy elites and average citizens, further allowing affluent individuals to shape political discourse.
Unlike previous political businessmen, Musk’s influence has grown far beyond technology and business. Known for leading companies such as Tesla, SpaceX, and Neuralink, Musk’s presence in public life has shifted from an eccentric CEO to both a media magnate and a social influencer. Most noteworthy is his presence on X (formerly Twitter), where he has used the platform to promote free speech (4). He has also been accused of selectively amplifying certain political voices and restricting others, most notably unblocking Donald Trump and Marjorie Taylor Green from X (5).
Another area of concern is Elon’s entrance into the political sphere. With his cozy relationship with Trump, Elon is set to play a big role in future decisions and possible legislation in the Trump White House. An important point is the possibility of Elon being able to regulate an industry where he has a direct stake in terms of profit. Areas like space tech, electric vehicles, crypto, and biomedicals could be greatly influenced by Elon. Along with that, Trump has also allowed Musk to participate in diplomatic affairs, most noticeably in the Russo-Ukrainian War. President-elect Trump reportedly allowed Musk to participate in a diplomatic discussion between Ukrainian President Zelensky and Trump, which has raised concerns about whether Musk is fit or should be allowed to participate in such high-level diplomatic matters, especially since he has no previous experience in international relations (6).
Legal experts from Harvard Law argue that Musk’s influence, while not illegal, raises ethical questions about the role of private interests in public communications. His business interests, including possible contracts with the U.S. government and global stakeholders, complicate his political actions more. Similarly, his involvement in AI development, through companies like Neuralink and xAI, positions him to influence technological regulations that could directly impact his corporate ventures. This overlap between his business interests and policy influence raises legitimate concerns about democratic accountability, as an unelected private citizen potentially shapes regulations that affect both his corporate interests and the broader public good.
For over a century, America has tried–and largely failed–to keep big money out of politics. Back in 1907, the Tillman Act took the first step in tackling this problem by banning corporations from dumping money directly into federal campaigns (7). Unfortunately, these regulations failed to prevent the usage of gifts and favors to sway public officials, thus leading to our current system of lobbying. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling in 2010 further transformed campaign finance law by determining that political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment (8). Born from the Citizens United ruling, Super Political Action Committees (Super PACs) serve as funding vessels that allow affluent contributors to pour limitless money into political advocacy, exploiting the distinction between direct campaign contributions and ‘independent’ political spending.
Despite promises from both parties to fix this broken system, little has been taken to remove money from politics. The DISCLOSE Act from 2010, which was supposed to force political donors into the spotlight by making lawmakers reveal who’s bankrolling campaigns, failed to pass the Senate (9). Neither Democrats nor Republicans seem eager to close the money pipeline, and the bill has gone nowhere. The situation becomes even more concerning when considering how billionaires like Musk can now bypass traditional political spending by directly controlling major communication platforms. His ability to shape public discourse through X while simultaneously wielding influence in the White House represents an unprecedented concentration of power that threatens the fundamental principles of democratic governance. This fusion of corporate, media, and political influence in the hands of unelected billionaires undermines the very notion of representative democracy and equal participation in our political system.
Frelinghuysen, Alice Cooney, Nicholas C. Vincent, and Moira Gallagher. “Artistic Furniture of the Gilded Age.” The Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 73, no. 3 (2016): 1–48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/43825582.
Parks, Miles.“Mike Bloomberg Suspends His Presidential Campaign and Endorses Joe Biden.” NPR, March 4, 2020. https://www.npr.org/2020/03/04/811873643/after-disappointing-super-tuesday-mike-bloomberg-suspends-his-campaign.
Federal Election Commission. "Citizens United v. FEC." Accessed December 6, 2024. https://www.fec.gov/legal-resources/court-cases/citizens-united-v-fec/.
Silverman, Jacob. "Musk of the Spheres: Elon's Doomed-to-Succeed Twitter Buy." The Baffler, no. 64 (2022): 54-58. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27159395
The Associated Press. “Elon Musk’s Twitter Reinstates Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene.” AP News, November 21, 2022. https://apnews.com/article/elon-musk-technology-donald-trump-marjorie-taylor-greene-misinformation-cb7b71a78b7b8e3516711e287457806c.
“‘You Shouldn’t Be a Jerk to Get Ahead’: Harvard Law Expert says that Elon Musk and the Tech Industry Risk Gains When They Engage in Disreputable Business Practices.” ” Harvard Law Today, February 7, 2023. https://hls.harvard.edu/today/the-business-ethics-of-elon-musk-tesla-twitter-and-the-tech-industry/.
Bitzer, J. Michael. "Tillman Act of 1907 (1907)." The Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University, July 2, 2024. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/tillman-act-of-1907/.
Lau, Tim. “Citizens United Explained.” Brennan Center for Justice, December 12, 2019. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained.
Congress.gov. "S.4822 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): DISCLOSE Act of 2022." September 12, 2022. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4822.
Comments