In 2024, just 300 billionaires and their families poured roughly $3 billion into federal elections — accounting for nearly one-fifth of the almost $16 billion spent to elect candidates that cycle, according to a New York Times analysis. These individuals represented just 0.0087% of all donors who gave more than $200, yet their average contribution of $10 million apiece was equivalent to what 100,000 typical donors would give. This isn't a new phenomenon. The ultra-wealthy have been pulling the strings of American government for over 150 years — and the mechanisms have only grown more sophisticated.
The Gilded Age: When Money Bought Government Outright
The term "Gilded Age" itself was a critique. Mark Twain coined it in his 1873 novel to satirize how "serious social problems" were "masked by a thin gold gilding of economic expansion," as HISTORY.com notes. Beneath the veneer of prosperity, corruption was the operating system of American politics.
During the late 19th century, corporate titans didn't just influence politicians — they owned them. As ushistory.org describes, "both houses of Congress were full of representatives owned by big business" and "big money bought a government that would not interfere." The Pennsylvania Railroad was so powerful it maintained its own office in the state Capitol, and its chief lobbyist was known as "the 51st Senator," according to HISTORY.com.
The numbers tell the story of staggering inequality. By 1890, the wealthiest 1% of American families owned 51% of the country's real and personal property, while the bottom 44% owned just 1.2%, according to HISTORY.com. Republican power broker Mark Hanna captured the era's ethos perfectly: "There are two things that are important in politics. The first is money, and I can't remember what the second one is."
It took a grassroots backlash — the Progressive movement — to begin reining in the corruption. Reformers pushed for direct primary elections, antitrust enforcement, and campaign finance rules that would stand for over a century.
Citizens United: Tearing Down a Century of Safeguards
Those Progressive-era protections held, more or less, until January 21, 2010. That's when the Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC swept away what the Brennan Center for Justice calls "more than a century's worth of campaign finance safeguards." The Court held that laws restricting independent political spending by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment.
The late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg called it the worst ruling of her time on the Court. President Obama warned it would "open the floodgates for special interests…to spend without limit in our elections," as Britannica recounts.
The most significant consequence wasn't the corporate speech argument — it was the creation of super PACs and the explosion of dark money. As the Brennan Center explains, "perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don't disclose their donors." Dark money expenditures surged from less than $5 million in 2006 to more than $1 billion in the 2024 presidential elections alone.
Polling revealed that 80% of the public opposed Citizens United, with remarkably little variation across party lines — 85% of Democrats, 76% of Republicans, and 81% of independents, according to the Roosevelt Institute. Yet the ruling stands.
2024: The Billionaire Election
The 2024 election showed the full consequences of Citizens United in action. According to Americans for Tax Fairness, just 100 billionaire families poured a record-breaking $2.6 billion into federal elections — one of every six dollars spent by all candidates, parties, and committees. That represents a staggering 160-fold increase in billionaire political spending since the Citizens United decision.
Elon Musk, the world's richest person, contributed over $278 million to Republican candidates — almost all of it in direct support of Donald Trump's presidential campaign. His super PAC, America PAC, didn't just run ads; it took over core campaign operations including voter outreach in swing states, according to the Brennan Center. Miriam Adelson and banking heir Timothy Mellon each contributed over $100 million to Trump-aligned groups, per OpenSecrets.
As the Brennan Center's Daniel Weiner wrote, the "resulting collapse of campaign finance rules has combined with a resurgence in the sort of high-level self-dealing that was pervasive during the Gilded Age, when bribery and graft were common, and corporations used their wealth to secure monopolies, government subsidies, and other benefits."
The American public sees the problem clearly. An OpenSecrets/Ipsos poll found that the vast majority of Americans — regardless of party — say unlimited political spending weakens democracy and wealthy donors have too much power. A Pew Research study found that 72% of American adults support limits on the amount individuals and organizations can spend in elections, and 63% believe most elected officials ran for office to "make a lot of money."
Taking the Power Back: What DirectGov Is Building
The pattern from the Gilded Age to today is unmistakable: when ordinary citizens lack the tools to organize, debate, and drive policy, the ultra-wealthy fill the vacuum. The Progressive movement succeeded because it gave people new mechanisms — direct primaries, ballot initiatives, referendums — to bypass the corruption.
DirectGov is building the modern version of that toolkit. On DirectGov, any citizen can propose policy ideas that address the needs of everyday Americans — not the wish lists of billionaire donors. DirectGov then analyzes proposals with real data and evidence allowing the community to debate them in structured, good-faith discussions, and promote the best ideas to build momentum for real change.
This isn't about left versus right. It's about the 99.99% versus the 0.01% who currently dominate the conversation. When a handful of billionaire families can outspend millions of ordinary donors, democracy needs new channels — ones that can't be bought.
The Progressives proved that organized citizens can overcome entrenched wealth. DirectGov is your invitation to do it again. Join the conversation and propose your first policy idea today.
Sources
- HISTORY.com — How Gilded Age Corruption Led to the Progressive Era
- HISTORY.com — How the Gilded Age's Top 1 Percent Thrived on Corruption
- HISTORY.com — Are We Living in the Gilded Age 2.0?
- ushistory.org — Politics of the Gilded Age
- Brennan Center for Justice — Citizens United, Explained
- Brennan Center for Justice — Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election
- Roosevelt Institute — Citizens United and the Decline of US Democracy
- Britannica — Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission
- Americans for Tax Fairness — Billionaires Buying Elections
- Common Dreams — Billionaires Gave Nearly 20% of Donations in 2024
- OpenSecrets — Outside Spending on 2024 Elections Shatters Records
- OpenSecrets — Most Americans See Unlimited Election Spending as a Threat
- The Hill / Pew Research — Nearly Two-Thirds Say Reducing Influence of Political Spending Is a Top Priority
- Brennan Center for Justice — Dark Money Hit a Record High in 2024