JUSTICE ON MY mIND

The opposition to Donald Trump’s presidency has not paid enough attention to the role of the super-rich in funding his destructive political agenda. These individuals contribute huge amounts of money to support the damage Trump is inflicting on the country.

The table below lists political contributions made by four of the leading right-wing donors as of August in the 2026 election cycle. It lists their total political donations so far, as well as the money they have given to MAGA, Inc, the SuperPAC that Trump controls.

NAME    TOTAL ($) MAGA Inc ($)

Jeff & Jamine Yass 93,800,000 16,000,000

Ben Horowitz & Marc Andreessen 91,300,000 12,000,000

  Miriam Adelson 67,600,000 12,600,000

Greg & Anna Brockman 50,000,000 25,000,000

   Source: Washington Post, August 22, 2026

These are astonishing numbers.  But even more remarkable is the fact that overall, the top fifty political donors together contributed $1,500,000,000 (that is, $1.5 billion) to Republican-supporting entities (Democrats received $ 410,000,000). The thought that grassroots populism is the fuel that drives the Trump movement is belied by these numbers. His movement is instead sustained by a wealthy elite that endorses Trumpian values and politics.

The political power that the rich donor class gains with its mega-donations has been protected by the Supreme Court. In a series of cases, the Court has decreed that it is unconstitutional to limit political contributions and expenditures. The result of these decisions is that the super-rich are able to exercise political influence in excess of everyone else.  To a large extent, it is in fact a rerlatively small group of big donors who are responsible for Donald Trump’s presidency

Despite the Court’s rigidity on the issue, the citizens of Montana recently decided to try again to limit campaign spending. In that state, this November’s ballot will include a measure, that if passed, would bar businesses, unions and non-profit organizations from making any donations to candidates or political parties.

The ballot’s proponents in Montana have attempted to sidestep the Court’s reasoning in its previous cases concerning campaign contributions and expenditures. Reformers point out that states have been granted the right to regulate businesses within their borders. That, they claim, is precisely what their ballot proposal would do.

It is uncertain that the proposal will be victorious in November. But even if does secure a majority vote, the Supreme Court will probably strike it down unconstitutional. It’s argument will likely be based on the grounds that the Montana proposal violates the Constitution’s protection of citizens’ rights.

The problem here is that the Constitution avoids speaking to a central precept of democratic theory - the ability of all citizens equally to influence political outcomes. There is nothing in the document that provides a basis for the Court to rule that the excessive political use of wealth unconstitutionally empowers the few at the expense of the many.

A truly egalitarian political system would correct the neglect that the Constitution accords to political equality. Because discourse and debate are necessary if an electorate is to become well informed, discussions of policies and legislation must flouish, ranging both wide and deep. Ignoring or censoring ideas should be ruled out. And rich individuals should not be permitted to use their wealth on a scale that all but drowns out alternative viewpoints.

A radical reforming of the Constitution would affirm the centrality of free speech for all. And to ensure a political system of equal participation, it would limit the extent to which individuals could use their wealth to engage in political debate.

In the absence of such a radical reworking of the Constitution, it nonetheless remains possible to counterbalance the disproportionately large role played by wealthy individuals in the country’s political dialogue. Would-be contributors to political debate could be subsidized.  People who lack the wealth of the elite could be provided with public grants to enable them to compete as equals with the rich in the realm of ideas.

Such a system would not run afoul of the Supreme Court. After all, it has allowed candidates in cities, states and localities to receive public campaign funding. These public subsidies have enabled individuals who otherwise lack the funds to mount competitive campaigns, to run - often succesfully - for elective office. Public financing thus has served both to increase political participation and wider debate, and to facilitate the presentation of a wide variety of ideas to the electorate.

What we urgently need is a system that achieves greater equality in the realm of ideas. Political equality requires a counterbalance to the ability of the ultra-rich to flood the media  to ensure that their political viewpoints prevail.