After thinking about the midterms on Tuesday, I wanted to apply our discussion of interest groups to Elon Musk. Musk is essentially an interest group by himself. As the world's richest man, he has the financial resources and political connections to pursue favorable legislation for his companies. He moved his businesses to Texas for its business friendly policies and lower costs. As Stigler 71 explains, acquiring favorable regulation requires votes and dollars, and Musk has tried to supply both.
This year he spent at least $474 million supporting Republican candidates in the midterms. However, his preferred candidates lost several major races, including Ken Paxton's Senate race and Greg Abbott's gubernatorial race in Texas. Nearly half a billion dollars later, Musk has very little to show for it. Under Abbott, his companies received billions in tax incentives and benefited from legislation giving them advantages over other businesses. One shameless example was when Texas rewrote its corporate laws to give his Starbase operation the legal right to shut down a nearby public beach and highway. With the incoming administration promising to end preferential treatment, Musk will likely lose a large amount of money.
Olson argues that smaller, concentrated groups have an advantage in political organization because their members have more to gain from collective action. Musk takes this idea to its extreme. He has the resources of an entire interest group without worrying about free riders or coordinating thousands of members. Yet, this election demonstrates that money alone cannot guarantee political influence. Perhaps this is enough to give Olson a little peace of mind. Even the world's richest man cannot simply buy the political outcomes he wants.
No comments:
Post a Comment