THE PRIVATE MONARCHY

How a Handful of Billionaires Took Our Political Power — and How We Take It Back

A few dozen billionaires now wield more political power than the 333 million people who call this country home.

In less than seven months, the United States will commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. Yet we approach this milestone facing a contradiction the Founders would recognize instantly:

A tiny ruling class now has more influence over American government than the people themselves.

The U.S. has roughly 900 billionaires, but modern politics is shaped by a much smaller subset. A recent Washington Post investigation identified the top 20 mega-donors—across both parties—whose spending outweighs the contributions of millions of citizens combined.

The Founders rose up against monarchy.

Today we face the threat of a private monarchy — the rule of wealth over self-government.

As July 4, 2026 nears, the question before us is simple:

Will America celebrate its 250th year as a democracy of citizens — or an oligarchy of billionaires?

I. The Age of the Billionaire Veto

The Washington Post shows how billionaire donors now function as an unelected branch of government, shaping legislative agendas, regulatory priorities, agency behavior, and public narratives.

The clearest measure is the checkbook. In 2024, two examples stood out:

• Jeff Yass: ~$190 million to Trump and Trump-aligned entities

• Elon Musk: ~$290 million to Trump and Trump-aligned entities

These sums flow through Super PACs, political committees, and politically active nonprofits — the infrastructure that now dominates American politics.

Jeff Yass and the TikTok Windfall

On September 25, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order allowing ByteDance to avoid a forced liquidation of TikTok. Yass, co-founder of Susquehanna International Group and a major ByteDance investor, stood to lose billions. The “qualified divestiture” instead allowed him to roll his ~15% stake into a new U.S.-majority joint venture valued at $30–50 billion.

He kept TikTok’s 170 million American users — and a massive tax-efficient windfall.

This is how political influence becomes financial architecture.

Elon Musk and DOGE

Musk offers a structural example.

The administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) placed Musk-affiliated companies at the center of federal modernization, giving them privileged access to IT contracts, infrastructure projects, and federal datasets competitors cannot match. Analysts warn that DOGE’s reach allows Musk’s firms to train AI models, refine logistics systems, and develop commercial products using insights drawn from government data — a competitive advantage no rival can replicate.

This is not representative government. It is private empire grafted onto public authority.

And Yass and Musk are only two among several dozen mega-donors. Taken together, they reveal a new and unsettling reality — a handful of wealthy actors can now bend government to their will.

It is a sharp break from the spirit of the document we will celebrate next year. In the final line of the Declaration of Independence, the signers pledged:

“…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.”

In 1776, they risked life and fortune to build a country. In 2026, too many of our wealthiest actors use their fortunes to extract from the country — treating government not as a shared project but as an opportunity to secure advantage for me, myself, and I.

II. The Public Already Knows Something Is Broken

Americans know government responds to wealth, not to them — and that’s why the polling shows rare national unity:

• 85% say campaign costs deter good candidates

• 84% say special interests have too much influence

• 77% want spending limits

• 80% would vote to cap fundraising and expenditures

• 82% say money in politics threatens democracy

Americans know the system is rigged. Understanding why nothing changes requires looking to the judiciary.

III. The Supreme Court Built This System — and Will Strike Down Policy Fixes

Oligarchy is not an accident. It is a legal architecture.

Three decisions created the modern system:

1. Buckley v. Valeo (1976) — money = speech

2. Citizens United (2010) — unlimited corporate spending

3. SpeechNow (2010) — the birth of the Super PAC

Then came McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), which eliminated aggregate donation caps. The Court ruled that only explicit quid-pro-quo bribery counts as corruption — rejecting decades of precedent recognizing broader forms of undue influence.

This week, the Supreme Court showed its hand again.

In NRSC v. FEC (Dec. 2025), the Court signaled openness to striking coordinated-spending limits — one of the last remaining firewalls preventing campaigns and Super PACs from merging into a single fundraising machine. These are the very safeguards the Court once cited when dismantling other rules.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson called the maneuver what it is: “bait-and-switch 2.0.”

On the other end, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, defending the deregulatory status quo that empowers billionaire donors, argued that spending limits “encroach on truly central campaign speech.”

Whatever one thinks of the doctrine, the result is unmistakable:

Congress cannot legislate its way out.

Any serious reform will be struck down.

Only a constitutional amendment can restore political equality.

IV. Disordered Discourse: The Information System Oligarchy Needs

The Supreme Court has defined corruption so narrowly that only bribery counts.

But oligarchic power operates across a much broader ecosystem — especially the digital information environment.

Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins, speaking with journalist Charlie Warzel, describes today’s media landscape as a form of disordered discourse: a system in which verification collapses, deliberation collapses, accountability collapses, and algorithmic outrage becomes the operating system.

Americans are split into algorithmic tribes, unable to sustain shared reality.

And here is the critical connection:

The dominant algorithms shaping public life — the ones driving polarization, misinformation, and outrage — are owned and controlled by the same small billionaire class whose political spending already overwhelms democracy.

Journalist Noah Smith distills the strategy:

“They need to make you hate some group — so you never notice who is actually in charge.”

Disordered discourse keeps citizens fragmented and democracy weak. It is the ideal environment for oligarchy.

V. Why Only a Constitutional Amendment Can Restore Equal Voice

Only a constitutional fix can override the Court’s money-as-speech doctrine and restore democratic equality.

Below is the proposed Political Equality Amendment (the 28th Amendment):

Section 1

The rights protected by this Constitution shall not be construed to equate the expenditure of money with speech.

Section 2

Congress and the states shall have the power to regulate and set reasonable limits on the raising and spending of money to influence elections, in order to ensure political equality and prevent the dominance of concentrated wealth.

Section 3

No individual contribution to influence a federal election — including contributions to campaigns, political committees, tax exempt organizations, independent-expenditure campaigns, or any entity engaged in federal electoral advocacy — shall exceed one percent of the median household income for the preceding year.

Today, that would be approximately $800 per entity, per cycle.

Why this matters

This cap anchors political influence to the economic reality of the median household. It prevents domination by any single individual. It applies to PACs, c(4)s, and independent-expenditure networks. And it curbs the power of the few dozen mega-donors who now dominate modern politics.

Unwinding the Attack-Ad Economy

Political strategist Will Robinson notes that although broadcast TV is losing persuasive power, it remains saturated with toxic, polarizing ads — while digital platforms amplify them exponentially.

Under Section 3:

• no billionaire can bankroll $50 million in attacks

• no Super PAC can flood regions with dark-money content

• no independent-expenditure network can dominate digital platforms

Shrink the money supply, and you shrink the toxicity driving the polarization that is undermining the country.

VI. Why This Amendment Is Winnable — and Built to Evolve

Constitutional amendments establish principles; implementation unfolds over decades.

Section 2 gives Congress and the states authority to adapt as new threats emerge: bundling schemes, dark-money networks, AI persuasion, crypto laundering, billionaire-owned media operations, or any loophole oligarchs devise.

It is a framework for continuous democratic self-defense.

International Proof: Finland

Finland — cited by Transparency International and the OECD as one of the world’s least corrupt democracies — caps donations, requires transparency, and provides strong public financing.

The results:

• high trust

• low corruption

• elections centered on ideas, not fundraising

• no mega-donor class

America need not copy Finland — but we can learn from it.

VII. The Path to Ratification

Ratifying an amendment is daunting.

It should be.

But broad reform becomes possible when a supermajority believes the system no longer responds to them — and 77–85% of Americans already support limits on political money.

The real question is whether candidates will run on it.

2026 must be a referendum on oligarchy.

Are you with the people — or with the mega-donor class?

If Democrats run on this message and win in 2026, the mandate becomes unmistakable.

VIII. The Semiquincentennial Test

As America approaches 250, the Declaration calls us back to first principles. Political philosopher Danielle Allen reminds us that the Declaration was not merely a statement — it was the making of a people.

A people is not a demographic category.

It is a decision.

The Political Equality Amendment asks:

Do we still intend to be a self-governing people?

We may not have billions.

But we have one another.

We have votes.

And we still possess the courage to act.

Let the Semiquincentennial be not just a celebration — but a restoration of the people’s voice.

Oligarchs may buy bigger and bigger yachts — but they cannot buy our democracy.

Note: As the author, I am clear: This piece does not attempt to answer every implementation detail. No constitutional amendment ever has. Implementation is not the obstacle. Political will is.