Sequestered in my own row on a vacant flight back to Eugene, I used much of my time to dissect current events and queued a few Wall Street Journal podcasts. One podcast episode discussed the nature of Elon Musk’s “complicated” political ties and anonymous Trump donations that were recently unearthed. I reclined and listened attentively to the ways donor dollars are covertly shaping our decisions.
It got me thinking: the rise of “social welfare organizations” enables high-profile figures like Musk to contribute significant funds without disclosing their identities. How does this influence our democratic process? As anonymous contributions mold policy and determine public opinion, advocacy must start at the ground level to ensure stricter regulations and accountability.
In 2022, you might’ve been familiar with the mysterious advertisements infesting your TVs, attacking social issues related to gender-affirming care and immigration. So who paid for these? Wealthy contributors such as Musk are to blame for these two-headed assaults on the Democratic party, traced back to his “Citizens for Sanity” campaign that raised $50 million.
Recent data points to $1,525.6 million raised by this year’s election candidates. Roughly $900 million from the Harris Administration’s committee was consolidated, while more than $400 million has been fundraised from outside sources.
On Trump’s end, the billionaire businessman has secured significantly less, with $367 million from his committee and $613 million from outside supporters. The largest individual contribution I could find comes from Winred in Virginia, amounting to $592 million from June 5 as a Trump-supporting endorsement.
In a state like Oregon, which prides itself on historically progressive values, it’s disheartening to see proposals generated that preserve the status quo.
Political donations are seeds scattered by a gust of wind, taking root only by influence. Prior to news spiraling about the upcoming election, it wasn’t something I carried with much weight.
That’s the reality of our political landscape — the currency of influence is obscured, stifling accountability.
However, signs of progress continue. Oregon House Bill 4024, which was passed in March, establishes campaign finance limits and disclosure requirements to amplify transparency around expenditures in Oregon, with regulations to take effect in 2027-28.
The creation of “small-donor committees” and “membership organizations” offers some semblance of a pathway to inclusivity, but the reality is that those with greater resources will always find ways to exploit the system. While HB 4024 is a step in the right direction, some — including myself — find it to be a superficial layer to cement the status quo.
In the 2022 election year, $5,000 was contributed to Kate Brown, the governor of Oregon from 2015 to 2023, while $11,248 was regarded as “unavailable for these records.” This may not seem like a lot in the grander scheme, but aren’t you curious to understand what’s operating behind closed doors?
Using Musk as a case study helped significantly in allowing me to understand the direct influence public figures can have on election outcomes. As Oregonians, we need to demand more than window dressing.
My advice? Read the fine print. That’s the beauty of our election system – you get to do your own homework and draw your own conclusions, but only if you read through the seams. It’s a letter collage that’ll provide clarity if you do your own research, develop your own opinion and be your own advocate.
