Extract from ABC News
Donald Trump swept to victory in the US presidential election earlier this month. (Reuters: Brian Snyder)
There's something you should know about oligarchs.
"They really don't want to be called oligarchs," explains Jeffrey Winters, a professor of political science at Chicago's Northwestern University.
"We have to realise this term is not new. It's had a very stable meaning for more than 2,000 years."
The definition is simple. An oligarch is a person with tremendous wealth and political influence — two qualities that often go hand in hand.
Since the 90s, the word has chiefly been associated with Russia: used to describe the billionaires who surround Vladimir Putin, propping up his power, shaping policy and protecting their own fortunes.
"But it goes far beyond that," Professor Winters says. "We're in a moment in the United States where that floodgate has been completely thrown open.
"There are now almost no limitations on the use of wealth in American democracy, and that means that what we have in the United States is a combination of democracy and oligarchy."
The reasons why an oligarch might not want the label are obvious.
When speaking about money and power, we hear a lot about the so-called 1 per cent — an echelon that requires a household wealth of more than $US33 million ($51 million) to be part of in America, according to Federal Reserve figures.
But an oligarch has much more than that. They're usually in the 0.1 per cent club: billionaires who exist in a different financial universe to other voters. People like Elon Musk and Bill Gates.
An analysis by financial services company Bankrate released earlier this year estimated 54 per cent of the US population wouldn't be able to pay an unexpected expense of $1,000 or more from their savings.
It's a dilemma oligarchs will likely never be faced with. And yet, they're playing an increasing role in US democracy.
Criticisms of oligarchs predate US president-elect Donald Trump's decision to nominate Musk — one of his major financial backers and the world's richest man — for an official government role.
To better understand how we got here, it helps to go back to a landmark 2010 Supreme Court ruling that abrogated as unconstitutional a ban on incorporated entities being financially involved in US federal elections.
In lay terms, the judgment paved the way for organisations like businesses, non-profits and trade unions to make unbridled spends on elections.
I'll make it even more simple: suddenly, the oligarchs were free.
Trump supporters pose for snaps in Washington DC earlier this month. (Reuters: Leah Millis)
While donations made directly to a party or candidate must be disclosed in the US, pouring money into partisan, politically adjacent groups doesn't always have to be.
These outfits can still do things like run advertising and pay people to knock on doors during campaigns.
Supporting these types of organisations can provide an avenue for America's mega-rich to cover their tracks while still influencing the electorate. It's even been given a name: dark money.
A 2018 report by non-partisan think tank the Brennan Center for Justice sums it up.
"The White House has a secret weapon. It's an army of donors, able to pour unlimited dollars into ad campaigns promoting the president and his agenda without having to publicly disclose who they are or how much they gave."
Massive organisations running alongside campaigns
During the most recent US presidential election campaign, Kamala Harris and Trump hogged the spotlight, crisscrossing the country and burning through cash.
In the shadows, however, these well-funded support groups — officially known as political action committees, or PACs — were working hard too.
Take one named Future Forward, for example.
It was trying to get Democratic candidate Harris into the White House and raised a reported $US900 million to aid her bid.
Future Forward's money and influence is so significant it's described as a "super PAC".
Michael Bloomberg and Gates, who each have net worths of over $US100 billion, according to Forbes, were said to be among its biggest donors.
While neither made any secret of who they were supporting in the election — indeed, Bloomberg has previously stood unsuccessfully for the Democratic Party's ticket — there's no way of knowing exactly how much money they tipped in.
Musk, meanwhile, threw his support behind Trump and founded his own super PAC.
Bill Gates donated to the Democrats this time but describes himself as bipartisan. (Reuters: Chris Jackson/pool)
PACs have been a common fixture of US politics since the mid-1940s, and don't just influence presidential races. Members of the Congress benefit from their backing, too.
They haven't always attracted controversy, either. Once upon a time, PACs had to exist parallel to a candidate.
However, a March ruling by the US Federal Election Commission rubber-stamped closer coordination between these wealthy, powerful behemoths and official political campaigns.
It's not clear how much money Musk gave his organisation, called America PAC.
Some media reports, citing sources inside the group, claim it raised more than $US200 million.
Musk's help went even further. The billionaire spoke at Trump rallies and talked up the Republican candidate in media appearances.
Critics claim Musk turned the social media network he owns, X, into a MAGA mouthpiece, laced with misinformation.
At one point during the campaign, Musk's super PAC was awarding a $US1 million cash prize to one lucky voter each day.
The giveaway was contentious and the subject of a legal challenge. To be eligible, people had to live in a swing state and have signed a petition "in favour of free speech and the right to bear arms".
Elon Musk and Donald Trump share the stage at a rally in Pennsylvania. (Reuters: Brian Snyder)
Professor Winters says such overt support from wealthy donors is unusual.
"We are in a moment when the use of wealth power is significantly more visible," he says.
"In previous eras, those who use wealth power have been much more cautious."
Since Trump won the November 5 vote, Musk has been a constant at the president-elect's Palm Beach base, sitting in on staffing meetings and even reportedly joining a call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He's referred to himself as "the first buddy".
The world's richest man is now seemingly inseparable from the world's most powerful office. Some are calling it "broligarchy".
"Americans would be more concerned if they understood what was actually happening," says Brooke Harrington, a professor of economic sociology at New Hampshire's Dartmouth College.
"People like Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy being appointed to a Department of Government Efficiency and being given sweeping powers to cut federal programs and budgets; that is being misrecognised as garden-variety oligarchy, which we've had in the US for generations.
"I contend that it's actually quite different. Oligarchs of old wanted very little more than tax cuts and lower regulation — things that would be good for them personally and for their businesses.
"The broligarchs of today, the group of billionaires from tech and finance, have an actual political program. They want to remake the world in their image."
'Megadonors now sponsor candidates like prize racehorses'
While it's true some political donors in the US are choosing to become more visible, there are still those who prefer to keep a low profile.
Take billionaire Timothy Mellon, for instance.
According to official records, he donated $US50 million to the Make America Great Again Inc super PAC the day after Trump was found guilty of 34 felonies in a New York court this year.
The 82-year-old's bankrolling of the Trump campaign is said to exceed $US175 million. The only photograph of him online is from 1981.
"He is someone no one could identify. He's very reclusive," Professor Winters says.
"Not all oligarchs are interested in being visible. The historical pattern is to not be visible and to use your resources behind the scenes, as it were, to get the results you want."
Critics say oligarchs use their financial wealth to shape public policy so that it's favourable to them and their fortunes, with little regard for the interests of the masses.
Musk, for his part, has made it clear he intends to use his influence for good.
As the head of America's soon-to-be-created Department of Government Efficiency, he claims that he wants to slash $US2 trillion in "waste" from the federal budget.
Gates, in a statement to the New York Times, said he had a history of being bipartisan but had donated to the Harris campaign this time.
"I support candidates who demonstrate a clear commitment to improving health care, reducing poverty and fighting climate change in the US and around the world," he said.
Outside of politics, Musk has joined The Giving Pledge, a concept Gates co-founded, which sees billionaires agree to give half of their wealth to philanthropic causes.
"Americans have grown to accept that wealthy people can influence politics," says Professor Harrington.
"I don't know what's in the hearts and minds of Bill Gates and Michael Bloomberg. Maybe they do some good things and maybe they do some bad things.
"But what I have to question is: is this still democracy? If so, how can it be that there is a handful of people in our country who have amassed so much wealth that they can effectively buy the politicians and the policies they want."
It's estimated the Harris campaign churned through well over $US1 billion in official funding.
That doesn't include money spent by super PACs, like Future Forward, to try and get her elected.
Many analysts argue dark money is out of control in the US.
"Megadonors now sponsor candidates like prize racehorses," Brennan Center president Michael Waldman wrote in an article earlier this year.
If the sums of money in this article sound eye-watering, consider this (and I'm going to continue Waldman's analogy): presidential nominees have to spend many millions of dollars to even be allowed a spot on the starting line.
In the US system, candidates who want to run for a major party must first battle it out in primary elections, splashing cash to beat people who are, technically, on the same team as them.
According to the political finances monitoring group Open Secrets, Hillary Clinton spent around $US250 million trying to win the Democratic Party's nomination against Barack Obama in her unsuccessful primary campaign during 2007 and 2008.
"Clinton left the race with $22.5 million in debt," the summary from the organisation claims.
"At least $11.4 million of which came from her own pocket."
Even thinking about contesting the primaries generally requires hopefuls to approach America's mega rich in a bid to get their backing.
"What this means is that very wealthy people essentially vet or filter who can be a viable, successful candidate," Professor Winters says.
"Basically, oligarchs have determined who the candidates are and what the agenda is going to be."
Kamala Harris's campaign spent up big in an attempt to win the election. (Reuters: Jonathan Ernst)
The relationship between money and politics around the world is not new. But in the US at least, spending has soared to new heights.
As that's happened, so has inequality.
Multiple studies have indicated the richest 1 per cent of people in America now control more than one-third of the country's wealth.
Living standards are declining, life expectancy is going backwards and younger people are living at home longer.
Of course, it's not just oligarchs funding politics. Harris badgered all her supporters for money over the course of the campaign, inundating them with emails and text messages.
Since she conceded the presidential election to Trump — and with the financial tap from defeated oligarch backers presumably turned off for a while — her team has still been sending out mass emails, sometimes more than once a day.
"First and foremost, we want to acknowledge the fear, confusion, and sadness many of you are feeling at this moment," one began.
"If that's you, then we're asking you to make a donation to the Democratic Party today."
There's a button urging people to chip in $500. For many Americans, it's surely one of those unexpected expenses they'd struggle to afford.
Professor Harrington warns America's problems go beyond the cost-of-living, and does not believe the so-called "broligarchy" provides answers.
In September, Musk described as an "interesting observation" a screenshot on X which promoted a theory that "high-status males" are the best people to be making decisions.
"Many of these broligarchs have already solved their problems like lower tax and looser regulations, that's all in the rear-view mirror," Professor Harrington, who's written a recently published book on this, says.
"Now it's about changing politics to their vision of what it should be. They are very public and loud about that, and it's an environment where elite, white men rule everybody else.
"It's this idea that some people are born to rule, and other people are born to serve and obey, and I'll let you guess which group you and I are supposed to belong to."
