It took an assassination attempt on Donald Trump for Elon Musk to come out of the woodwork and endorse the Republican candidate. However, anyone who imagines a “late” entry by the Tesla boss into the American presidential race is naive. Behind the scenes, the billionaire of South African origin has been working for several months to reinstall Donald Trump in the Oval Office. Since the beginning of spring, consultants and various service providers have been gathering in his offices every Friday, informing him of their progress, brainstorming on new strategies, presenting their ideas, and ingesting his. All work on behalf of the America Political Action Committee (America PAC), a structure conceived and designed with one sole purpose: the victory of Donald Trump – or the defeat of Kamala Harris – on November 5.
Little known to the general public in France, these symposiums go by the name of “Super PAC” and have a well-established role in American political life. Since their authorization in 2010 following a decision by the Supreme Court – Citizen United v. Federal Election Commission – the latter are real donation-raising machines. Their target? Profitable industries and billionaires eager to see their interests triumph, or at least a certain vision of society. Their particularity compared to classic PACs that are directly affiliated with political parties? Donations are unlimited. This is why “PACs have gradually lost their importance” in favor of Super PACs, notes Anne Deysine, professor emeritus at the University of Paris-Nanterre, lawyer and Americanist, author of the book The United States and Democracy (ed. L’Harmattan).
The scale of donations is thus considerably extended, with amounts ranging from a few hundred to several tens of millions of dollars. In 2023, the approximately 6,400 political committees – PACs and Super PACs combined – raised nearly $3.7 billion, and spent more than $3 billion, according to a press release from the Federal Election Commission (FEC). Astronomical amounts that “allow political parties to subcontract certain expenses,” explains Françoise Coste, professor of American civilization at the University of Toulouse. Thus, the sums collected are used to finance television spots, online advertising, mailings, and all other forms of communication intended to influence voters on election day. Anne Deysine, however, draws attention to the fact that “these election advertisements cannot be in favor of a candidate, but only in favor of a cause, such as the ban on the right to abortion, for example.”
Musk, biggest donor to conservatives?
A few days after Elon Musk’s official support for Donald Trump, the Wall Street Journal revealed that the Space X boss was committed to providing $45 million per month to the pro-Trump Super PAC called America PAC. This will continue until the end of the race for the White House in early November. A heads-up that did not please the billionaire. Elon Musk quickly denied the figures given by the business daily, assuring that his contributions to the Super PAC launched in June 2024 would be lower. The fact remains that at present, Elon Musk could well be on his way to becoming the most generous donor to the conservative camp’s campaign. Until now, this title was held by a certain Timothy Mellon. An 82-year-old billionaire whose family ranks 34th on the podium of the largest fortunes in the United States, according to estimates by Forbesand long-time supporter of the Grand Old Party (GOP).
A historic sponsorship that did not, however, prevent Timothy Mellon from sending a check for $2,700 to a certain Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2018. This year, the emerging figure of the donkey party is running for the first time in the State of New York. For the one who already embodies the left wing of the Democratic movement, this donation is a poisoned chalice. Thus, she immediately returns the money to the issuing bank which, under orders from its client, refuses to recover the funds. “AOC” will thus be forced to deal with the money of a Republican donor. While the billionaire’s approach may seem crazy, it is not an isolated case. There are even so-called “transpartisan” Super PACs, like the America-Israel PAC, better known by the acronym AIPAC. Republican or Democrat, it doesn’t matter. “WE STAND with those who stand with Israel,” AIPAC proclaims on its website, although its contributors remain predominantly conservative.
Pro-Trump Super PACs Lagging Behind
Alongside former 2016 Democratic primary candidate Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stands out as one of the few political figures to stand up against the typically American funding system. And for good reason: while pro-Trump Super PACs largely benefit Republican campaigns, their progressive counterparts also represent a considerable financial windfall for Democrats. Boosted by the arrival of Kamala Harris in the race for the White House, they have even raised more funds to date. “House and Senate Republicans are starting to panic over the considerable funding gap between them and Democrats,” headlines the specialist site Politico. Enough to make the Trump camp bitter, and it is sounding the alarm.
Before a crowd of GOP patrons, the chairman of the Congressional Leadership Fund, the largest Super PAC of the ruling party in the House of Representatives, confirmed that His organization needed some $35 million more “to keep the Democrats in check,” several sources told our colleagues at PoliticoAt the Republican convention in Milwaukee this summer, Montana Senator Steve Daines even confided: “Right now, left-wing billionaires are spending massively more than us, which keeps me awake at night.” And added: “We need you, […] Help us fight.” Understand: “Continue to feed the Super PACs.”
An efficiency that is difficult to measure
Proof of weight – “disproportionate” according to Anne Deysine – of these structures in both local and federal campaigns across the Atlantic. While their effectiveness remains difficult to measure, several indicators nevertheless give an idea of their impact on the outcome of the vote. According to data compiled by AdImpactmany candidates backed by the Fairshake Super PAC and its affiliated pro-crypto Super PACs, Defend American Jobs and Protect Progress, won their respective House and Senate races.
A study conducted in 2020 also estimates “it is likely that Super PACs will play an important role in elections,” particularly in swing states, “where considerable sums are injected”. Results that must however be put into perspective, particularly in light of the 2020 election. While Hillary Clinton’s supporters had raised more funds than the pro-Trump Super PACs in 2020, it was ultimately the champion of MAGA (for Make America Great Again, campaign slogan used by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 presidential campaign and taken up by Donald Trump) who won the presidential election. A practical case which, coupled with the counterproductive effects of these strategies, can contribute to creating a feeling of mistrust within a certain electorate, the researchers point out.
In L’Express, Françoise Coste affirms that “many people complain about the political propaganda financed en masse by Super PACs in the swing states“. And the specialist in American domestic politics adds: “What is worrying is that the problem for them lies only in the fact that there are too many of them and that it interferes with their television programming. The perverse aspects of these advertising spots financed by Super PACs are very rarely questioned in the United States.”
A fictitious impermeability
It must be said that in just a few years, Super PACs have become a real industry. “We are faced with structures that make an entire ecosystem work. There are already all these strategists who are slippery, but also the media who are lining their pockets thanks to the astronomical sums spent on advertising campaigns”, explains Françoise Coste, who does not hesitate to speak of “legal corruption”. This is one reason why, among other things, the role of these Super PACs in election campaigns raises questions.
Especially since the independence of these entities as a condition for the removal of the donation ceiling is only effective on paper. In reality, these political super committees are full of former collaborators and strategists of the candidates. “In theory, the campaign teams and the Super PAC teams are not supposed to coordinate, but those who lead the latter are often former members of the candidate’s campaign, and there are no sanctions,” deplores Anne Deysine.
For Françoise Coste, this operation also constitutes a “real hypocrisy, because everyone knows that America PAC or MAGA Inc. are Super PACs that work for Trump.” The entity, which constitutes Musk’s “first major foray into the presidential election,” according to the Wall Street Journalhas also seen its architecture transformed this summer for the benefit of a new team made up largely of former members of the campaign of Republican senator Ron De Santis.
“Money is Speech”
In addition, the sums raised by Super PACs oblige candidates. By means of almost unlimited financial capacities, donors exercise a power of influence over political personnel. Recently, the Financial Times rightly mocked one of Donald Trump’s latest U-turns. While reluctant to embrace what he said was “all hot air” in 2021, the former president has recently taken a liking to cryptocurrencies. The timing coincides with a visit to his Mar-a-Lago vacation spot by a group of bitcoin miners and industry executives. A meeting during which the group reportedly pledged to “raise over $100 million and turn out over 5 million voters for Trump,” the CEO of BTC Inc told CNBC.
Also, these Super PACs act as real lobbies, with the ability to dictate the political agenda of the first candidate who takes the bait. “Companies from the defense and telecom sectors give a lot to Republicans in the hope of obtaining contracts in exchange,” reports Françoise Coste, for example. A system made possible by a “maximalist” interpretation of the Supreme Court “which considers that spending money is expressing a political opinion,” analyzes the Americanist Anne Deysine. The famous “Money is Speech” (“money makes the law”), an argument brandished by the wise men and defenders of Super PACs who link the financing of political life to the First Amendment. And thus, to the sacrosanct freedom of expression, of which a certain Elon Musk proclaims himself the guarantor.
.