In the United States, businesses and business executives make up 60% of political contributions through monetary donations.
According to the Washington Post’s analysis of Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings, Elon Musk spent about $288 million in support of Donald Trump’s re-election. Kamala Harris similarly received generous donations from business executives, including a $50 million donation from Bill Gates through Future Forward USA Action. This organization was the main super political action committee (Super PAC) that contributed to the 2024 Harris presidential campaign through digital political ads.
The involvement of large donors in political campaigns is of great concern in the U.S., especially since eight in ten Americans believe that political campaign donors possess too much influence on congressional members’ decisions, according to a Pew Research report. The report additionally reflects that roughly 72% of U.S. adults believe that there should be limits to individual and organization spending on political campaigns.
While the involvement of corporations in political processes may seem like a major concern to democratic institutions, the solution to this concern is not to completely eliminate all corporate involvement. Instead, corporate political involvement needs to be more intentional, transparent and limited to ensure democratic processes are protected.
The 2010 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United V. Federal Election Commission brought concern over corporations and affluent donors spending unlimited amounts on election campaigns. Unlimited corporate spending in political processes is possible because of “dark money,” a term that refers to the political monetary contributions by unknown donors through super PACs.
Super PACs are essentially independent political committees with the ability to raise and spend unlimited amounts of money on political elections, provided that there is no direct coordination by the candidate they are endorsing. While super PACs are required to disclose information about who donates, the donors — which in most cases are politically active nonprofits — are not required to disclose who donates to them.
This creates a legal loophole that permits monetary donations received by non-profits to remain undisclosed, allowing for special interest entities to have a strong influence in political elections through their unrestricted spending.
Limited, intentional and transparent corporate political activity ensures that democratic processes are protected because it allows for public accountability. It is not always personally beneficial for corporations or special interest groups to get involved in political matters. As a matter of fact, corporations getting involved in politics may receive bipartisan backlash due to the changing nature of politics.
For example, amidst the political protests against George Floyd’s killing, companies started adopting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) policies and endorsing the Black Lives Matter movement. Target held promotional LGBTQ+ merchandise in 2023; Bud Light advertised with transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney; and, in 2022, Disney opposed legislation in Florida which prohibited LGBTQ+ topics from being discussed in schools before the fourth grade. However, since then, Target, Meta and 40% of companies have now either rolled back or completely eliminated DEI programs in response to a hostile administration and conservative pushback.
The susceptibility of companies to political backlash from both ends of the spectrum is a good thing, it limits political involvement while giving leverage to the public on what companies should engage in or support.
Completely banning companies and special interest groups from getting involved in politics is not the best solution because it disregards the potential companies have in promoting social justice causes. The fear that businesses only engage in politics because of monetary interests is not always true. A Rutgers study which analyzed public statements of corporate social responsibility, political contributions and legal issues from Fortune 1000 firms found that political posturing is not only driven by potential monetary gains, but also influenced by the ideological positions of employees. Requiring companies to be transparent about their intentions could alleviate much of the public’s skepticism about corporate political involvement.
Take, for instance, the involvement of corporations in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal regulatory implications, or corporations’ opposition to segregation during the Civil Rights era. Even in our generation, we have witnessed social justice issues being pushed forward through statements like Business for Voting Rights, Don’t Ban Equality and CEOs for Gun Safety. With the transparent involvement of corporations in politics, there is potential for social justice issues to advance further than without their support.
To ensure transparency, corporations can adopt business practices, such as the Corporate Political Responsibility Taskforce, that emphasize responsibility when engaging in the political sphere. Passage of proposed draft bills like the Democracy is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections (DISCLOSE) act, which requires organizations to disclose donors that contribute $10,000 or more in election cycles, is essential to address the issue of donor transparency.
The problem is not corporate political involvement, but the lack of intention, limitation and transparency on how companies engage in politics. As with our representative democracy, the people have power over companies when we decide what we choose to support.
Alex Alejo is an Opinion Intern for the summer 2025 quarter. He can be reached at aalejosa@uci.edu.
Edited by Gabrielle Olaso and Joshua Gonzales