No doubt you have already read dozens of explanations for the outcome of local and national elections in 2024. I hesitate to add to the plethora of expertise, but I can’t resist sharing a once-in-a-lifetime scoop. Originally, I planned to interview one of San Francisco’s wealthiest men about his investment in the city’s elections. He agreed to confer by telephone, provided I keep his identity secret.
Imagine my surprise when I answered my phone and the caller introduced himself (definitely a male voice) as “Money.” (I call him M in the conversation that follows, and I appear as I.).
I: You’re not the plutocrat I spoke to earlier.
M (sings): Please allow me to introduce myself. I’m a man of wealth and taste.
I: That’s Mick Jagger’s line, but you don’t sound like him.
M: If I give you my name or address, the next thing I know I’ll be swamped with funding appeals. All those phone calls and text messages and engraved invitations to benefits. No thank you. Just call me Money. And don’t say I’m “dark money,” because my color is light green.
I: Money talks.
M: You said it. Long before the Supreme Court ruled that spending wealth on campaigns is a form of free speech, I was speaking for candidates. I built Tammany Hall and Teapot Dome! And Trump Tower!
I: You bought a few elections in 2024?
M: All of them, even the few that had public funding. I’m tempted to leave San Francisco’s mayoral race off the list, because it hardly cost anything, compared to some other contests. Ten to twenty million for a mayor’s office—small potatoes compared to the cost of a Senate seat In Ohio, or the price of the White House. It cost Kamala Harris $1 billion to lose the presidency!
I: But surely other factors influence voters besides expensive television advertisements and the funds that finance campaign rallies, mailings, consultants, canvassing, and hush-money payments.
M: You mean some voters care what the candidates say about the cost of a gallon of milk or the dangers of walking down the street? I pay for most of the speeches, you know. (It’s surprising how few of the candidates ask me for a speech about the housing crisis or nuclear disarmament.) I suppose a few candidates write their own, but most don’t have time, they’re too busy raising funds.
I: America once had an unpaid leader. George Washington refused to take a salary when he led the Continental Army.
M: He asked only for his expenses to be paid, and they totaled $449,261.51, a high price, but probably worth it, according to Marvin Kitman in George Washington’s Expense Account.
I: Going back to the San Francisco mayoral race for a moment, where incidentally, the new mayor also declined to take a salary, and I wonder if he will take $449,261.51 in expenses. Do you really think Money was the determining factor? Integrity, experience, vision had less to do with the outcome than you did?
M: Let me rephrase your question. What you should ask is, can an election be won without money? I’d have to say “no,” it’s just that the amount varies. Those who can afford more, pay more.
I: We live in a plutocratic world. Moolah rules. Beggars can’t be choosers, it’s an old story.
M: But the prices keep rising. The current rate for purchase of the White House is no less than a billion dollars. It didn’t hurt that Elon Musk threw in a few hundred million, which he’ll be repaid with interest after he redesigns the federal budget. I’m not saying money bought every vote in 2024. For millions, the promise of future benefits was enough. They were told voting would increase their income, or lower the cost of living, or make their city, state, and country more remunerative. If they weren’t paid to vote, they were offered the promise of better days ahead.
I: But you don’t see better days ahead for San Francisco voters or 75 million MAGAs?
M: Who cares about the public? I bet on a winner, and I won. None of that “Brother, can you spare a dime?” stuff for me. I invest millions, billions in candidates, and money talks! It speaks for itself! Need I say more?
Joel Schechter is the author of three books on satire.
