Blatant corruption in the United States is legal – even though the Supreme Court pretends it is not, for easily disproved reasons. Elon Musk’s purchase of power in the Trump Administration through spending hundreds of millions of dollars is the latest and most egregious example. Yet the Court’s dangerous and absurd reasoning has rendered Congress and state legislatures unable to fix this broken system without a constitutional amendment.

During the 2024 campaign, the world’s richest man Elon Musk spent $277 million to elect Donald Trump along with other Republican candidates. Consequently following his victory, President Trump has given considerable power over the entire federal government to Musk.

Musk leads the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). While DOGE is an advisory body rather than an official department, it has employees within each actual federal department. Musk has directed an operation to dramatically cut government operations through shifting priorities, ending contracts, and attempting to mass fire federal employees. President Trump has been severely deferential to Musk, suggesting in a meeting that if any of his Senate-confirmed cabinet members had a problem with Musk, they should leave.

Coincidentally, DOGE has focused on hampering the operations of agencies tasked with policing and overseeing companies run by Elon Musk. DOGE acted to cut the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) workforce by 10 percent when the agency regulates the safety of self-driving cars like those developed by Tesla, and has opened an investigation into millions of the company’s cars. Musk also is pushing cuts at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) which sued Musk in January for allegedly cheating Twitter investors out of $150 million. The agency also got Musk and Tesla to agree to a settlement due to allegations of securities fraud in 2018.

Along with earning $38 billion in government contracts and subsidies historically, Musk’s business empire still maintains significant ties to the federal government. Tesla and SpaceX received $3.67 billion from federal contracts in 2024 alone. In 2025, after pushing cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Musk won a contract with the same agency to use SpaceX’s Starlink internet system, which threatens a 15-year and $2.4 billion contract the FAA signed with competing company Verizon in 2023.

The corruption works both ways. When widespread public anger towards Musk led to a consumer boycott and significant decline in the value of Tesla stock, President Trump said that the boycott was illegal and conducted a de facto commercial for Tesla in front of the White House. More specifically, Trump purchased a Tesla with Musk present on camera while reading from a notecard with sales information about Tesla products.

Musk has also consistently promised to fund primary challengers to Republicans and Democrats alike who oppose Trump’s policy agenda.

Legalized Corruption Through “Independent” Spending

How is this blatant corruption legal in the United States? The answer is quite simple: the Supreme Court’s facially stupid opinion that has unfortunately become legal precedent. In its Buckley v. Valeo (1976) decision, the Court ruled that spending money for political purposes was protected by the First Amendment. However, the justices decided that there was a legitimate government interest in curbing the existence or appearance of quid pro quo (this for that) corruption, so they allowed for limits on direct campaign contributions to candidates. Yet, the Court directly argued that someone spending money to support a candidate independently – meaning that they do not coordinate with the campaign they are backing or opposing – would not constitute the existence or appearance of quid pro quo corruption.

The logical failures of this decision were not unknown at the time. Justice Byron White wrote in his dissent:

Let us suppose that each of two brothers spends $1 million on TV spot announcements that he has individually prepared and in which he appears, urging the election of the same named candidate in identical words. One brother has sought and obtained the approval of the candidate; the other has not. The former may validly be prosecuted under § 608(e); under the Court’s view, the latter may not, even though the candidate could scarcely help knowing about and appreciating the expensive favor.

Under the rationale the Court established in Buckley, it is legal for Congress to prevent Elon Musk from donating $277 million directly to President Trump’s campaign because that could result not just in quid pro quo corruption but even the appearance of it. Yet, it is not the existence or appearance of such corruption if Elon Musk spends infinite sums of money to support Trump and his allies through (A) buying advertisements himself or (B) financing organizations run by Trump loyalists which support the president’s agenda. Thus, Congress nor any state cannot limit these independent expenditures at all because the Supreme Court has deemed such actions to violate the First Amendment’s protection of free speech.

Much public scrutiny has centered on the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC (2010) which ruled that corporations can spend infinite sums of money in elections.

As income and wealth inequality balloons in the United States, and the number of billionaires increases, the Supreme Court’s decision looms larger by granting single individuals like Musk extreme political power.

The only way to overcome the Buckley standard – aside from the Supreme Court overruling itself – is the passage of a constitutional amendment that allows the regulation of political spending. Congress can pass such an amendment with two-thirds majorities in the House and Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths (38) of states. Congress has yet to seriously push for an amendment outside of bills introduced by members such as Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08) and Jim McGovern (D-MA-02) along with former Representative John Katko (R-NY-24).

Or, two-thirds of the state government themselves can call for a constitutional convention to propose a constitutional amendment which three-fourths of the states would then ratify. Groups such as the nonpartisan organization Wolf-PAC have pushed states to call a convention. There are currently four state legislatures that have agreed to do so.

It is entirely evident that by spending hundreds of millions of dollars – a fraction of his hundreds of billions in net worth – Elon Musk purchased political power in the Trump Administration. Musk historically has not been a devoted Trump supporter. In 2017, Musk stepped down from an advisory council in the first Trump Administration because he opposed President Trump’s decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement. In 2022, Musk said he didn’t think Trump should run for president again, causing the former president to launch several scathing public attacks on him. Musk originally backed Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in the 2024 Republican presidential primaries. Even in 2024, Musk said he would not support any presidential candidate; his endorsement only came in July 2024 following the failed assassination attempt on Trump.

After Musk spent hundreds of millions of dollars to win Trump the presidency, the president gave him significant operational control over the finances and employees of the entire federal government.

This perversion of democracy is a feature not a bug of the law and will almost undoubtedly affect future elections.