A study published online by Cambridge University Press in 2014 had a blunt conclusion:

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. 

One of America’s most accomplished corporate welfare recipients is now on track to become the world’s first trillionaire. As Elon Musk stands to gain from what Fortune called “the biggest initial public offering of all time,” it is worth remembering how heavily his empire has depended on public money and government support.

During the years when Musk’s SpaceX was developing its launch systems, government contracts reportedly accounted for between 76% and 84% of company revenue. Taxpayer funding, regulatory advantages, and publicly financed infrastructure all helped build the foundation beneath Musk’s staggering fortune.

Elon Musk’s rise illustrates how modern oligarchic wealth is often built through close relationships with politicians and senior regulatory officials. When the financial rewards are vast, directing a small share of that wealth toward lobbying, political influence, campaign support, or cultivating powerful allies is simply another cost of doing business.

When political power and extreme wealth become intertwined, corruption no longer bothers to hide behind respectable appearances. The ruling circle rewards allies, protects insiders, and channels public resources upward while ordinary citizens are told there is never enough money for housing, healthcare, or social needs.

If the head of a political machine operates more like the don of a crime family than a public servant, it is hardly surprising that favoured billionaires are ushered toward ever more obscene concentrations of wealth. The skids are greased, the rules rewritten, and the public treasury treated as a private feeding trough.

For decades, many influential American politicians and lobbying groups have opposed universal social programs, arguing that they would increase taxes, expand government power, or reduce market competition. They resist programs known to improve — and often save — the lives of America’s poorest residents, yet see nothing wrong with wealthy individuals becoming vastly richer through corporate welfare financed by taxpayers.

.

.

.