fruits of others’ investigative journalism and archival research) — have we or anyone else been able to discover everything that billionaires do to influence politics. Aided by lax legal regulations, many billionaires have
what is to be done about billionaires?
127
been able to keep important political actions secret. In recent years, some key facts about the activities by a few secretive billionaires (the Koch
brothers, Sheldon Adelson, Robert Mercer, even John Menard Jr.) have
been unearthed through litigation or through diligent work by investiga-
tive journalists, historians, and others. Some attempts at stealth politics have even come to be widely known among attentive citizens. But this
is true of only a small minority of the wealthiest US billionaires. Many
others may well have given large dark- money contributions to political
candidates and causes but were not caught at it. They did not have to re-
port their actions to the FEC or anybody else. We cannot know how many
billionaires continue to remain in the dark.
We have, however, been able to draw some new inferences about silent
billionaires’ policy preferences by finding and compiling media- reported (but hitherto little- noticed) evidence of certain kinds of narrowly focused, policy- oriented actions. These include founding, joining, leading, or contributing money to political organizations that have clearly defined mis-
sions to advance particular kinds of public policy. This evidence indicates that quite a few billionaires undertake carefully targeted, policy- specific actions, alongside their broader and vaguer partisan agendas. Such evidence provides exceptionally reliable indicators of concrete policy preferences. It has allowed us to infer with considerable confidence the policy preferences of a sizable subset of billionaires, including some who have
been completely silent in public about policy matters. Using that infor-
mation in multivariate statistical analyses that include all of the one hundred wealthiest billionaires, we have discovered patterns that enable us to draw more general inferences about the policy preferences of America’s
wealthiest billionaires as a group.
A final limitation: although we have been able to learn some interest ing things about the likely effect on US public policy of billionaires’ enormous financial contributions (particularly through the case studies reported in chapters 3 and 5, and from patterns in federal government policies that
suggest billionaires and other wealthy Americans often get their way), we have not attempted to make definitive statements about the precise extent of billionaires’ political influence. Lacking data from laboratory experiments (a pipe dream) or credible natural experiments, we are aware of no
conclusive way to do so. Instead, we have pointed out reasons to believe
that billionaires probably have even more political influence than the “affluent” citizens that recent research has shown are much more influential than average citizens. Fundamentally, we operate on the assumption that
128
chapter six
billionaires have enough political clout so that it is worthwhile to study the specific policies they seek from government and how they go about
trying to get those policies enacted. This assumption does not seem very
controversial.
Despite all these limitations, we believe we have been able to come
up with some important new findings about America’s wealthiest billion-
aires. Our findings supplement, take into account, and build upon the ex-
cellent historical and journalistic studies that have been done concerning a few particular billionaires.
One novel aspect of our approach is that we have undertaken a system-
atic political study of all the wealthiest billionaires in the United States.
By systematically analyzing the politics of the one hundred wealthiest
Americans— the top one- quarter of the Forbes 400- wealthiest list— we have been able to learn a great deal about what sorts of political behavior are typical among billionaires and what sorts are not. We have learned, for example, that the centrist or even liberal political behavior of a few of the wealthiest, most highly visible, and most politically vocal billionaires— Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg, George Soros— is quite atypical of the wealthiest American billionaires as a group. Most billionaires are much more conservative on economic issues, and much quieter in public.
We have also learned something about how billionaires’ behavior var-
ies according to particular characteristics of the billionaires themselves or the sources of their wealth: just how wealthy they are; whether they got
their money mainly through entrepreneurship or inheritance; and what
sorts of industries they are most active in— finance or high- technology, consumer facing or not, concentrated or competitive, regulated mostly at
the state level or mostly at the national level. For example, we found that boundary- control strategies are employed more frequently by billionaires who are active in industries that are highly regulated and are mostly regulated at the state rather than national level. The inheritors of large fortunes (who are often publicity- shy) and those who run consumer- facing
companies (who are vulnerable to boycotts) show a tendency to say or do
rather little politically. High- tech billionaires tend to be especially enthusiastic about the immigration of high- skilled workers.
Importantly, we have learned a great deal about what the wealthiest
billionaires as a group say (or, more often, do not say) in public concerning certain major issues of public policy. Our web searches were very thorough. Separately for each billionaire on each key policy issue, we looked closely at everything the billionaire was reported to have said in public
what is to be done about billionaires?
129
(in the billionaire’s own prose, in print or electronic interviews, in casual overheard comments, or in any other way) about the specifics of each policy issue we studied. The period covered by our searches was rather long: roughly ten years. The keywords used in the searches were systematically
chosen, numerous, and comprehensive.
Our thorough web searches left us confident that we had found virtu-
ally everything of relevance that each billionaire said. That confidence
was further increased by the results of selected follow- up case studies.
The case studies had several objectives, but one chief aim was to reveal
possible measurement errors— especially any failures of our systematic
web searches to capture important statements or actions by billionaires
that might alter our understanding of their behavior. The case studies did in fact uncover a few additional comments. (We had missed some political comments by Warren Buffett in Berkshire Hathaway annual reports
and some comments by the Koch brothers that predated our study’s time
frame.) But these mostly just repeated or elaborated on statements that
we had found earlier.
The case studies also revealed some new and inventive types of po-
litical action that were employed by the very quiet billionaires John Me-
nard Jr., Robert Rowling, and Harold Simmons. But— even though we
selected the cases for study so as to maximize the chances of finding measurement errors— they revealed no relevant statements by billionaires we
had previously thought to be silent. When we judged a billionaire to be
silent about a policy issue, we can be confident that the billionaire in fact said nothing in public about it.
Our most important discovery has been that— over a fairly lengthy pe-
riod of time, concerning the specifics of several very important issues of public p
olicy— most of the wealthiest US billionaires have maintained a
complete public silence. That silence constitutes a key element of what we call stealth politics.
Evidence of Stealth Politics
The first building block in our evidence about stealth politics is the fact that most billionaires are highly active in politics, in ways likely to have significant influence on which candidates win election to public office and what policies they pursue. Most billionaires contribute substantial sums
of money to political parties and candidates (mostly Republicans): in the
130
chapter six
course of recent years, 92 percent contributed to one party or the other.
More than one- third of the wealthiest billionaires actively engaged in political fund- raising, and/or bundled political contributions from others.
Many supported policy- oriented causes or organizations in one issue area or another.
The high level of political activity— at least in terms of FEC- reported
financial contributions— among billionaires is fairly well known. A sec-
ond, crucial new building block that we add, however, is our finding that—
despite all this activity— most of the wealthiest US billionaires say little or nothing in public, over an extended period of time, about the specifics of major policy issues.
This is most striking in the case of issues related to Social Security. Most billionaires said little or nothing about whether to increase or decrease Social Security’s retirement and disability benefits; whether to privatize the program or to continue making government- guaranteed payments;
whether or not to continue the rather low payroll tax cap, which makes all income above roughly $100,000 completely exempt from the tax; whether
or not to raise the retirement age (effectively cutting lifetime benefits), or to reduce annual cost- of- living adjustments (ditto), or to change Social Security in some other way.
These are very important issues of public policy. They directly affect
millions of retired or disabled Americans, and they potentially affect many more millions of working people who need to plan for their future retire-ments. In recent years— including the period covered by our study— issues concerning Social Security have engaged many experts, commentators,
public officials, and others in vigorous and contentious public debates. Yet we found, remarkably, that fully 96 percent of the one hundred wealthiest billionaires said nothing whatsoever, over a roughly ten- year period, about the specifics of Social Security policy.
Similarly, most billionaires said little or nothing about tax policy— about personal income taxes; corporate taxes; capital gains taxes on investments; carbon taxes on pollution; or estate taxes. Nothing about whether the rates on one or another type of tax should be raised or lowered. Nothing about
whether taxes should be made more or less progressive (that is, whether or not taxes should fall more heavily on those who enjoy the highest levels of income or wealth). Nothing about whether or how more revenue should
be gathered to pay for the many government programs that majorities of
Americans want. In fact, 71 percent of the one hundred wealthiest billionaires said nothing whatsoever in public about the specifics of any of the tax-
what is to be done about billionaires?
131
related policies we investigated. Among the relatively few who did speak
up, most made only one or two comments over a ten- year period.
A similar silence has characterized most billionaires’ handling of the issues of abortion, same- sex marriage, and immigration. Although further
evidence indicates that the motives for and the effects of silence about abortion and same- sex marriage have tended to be somewhat different
than on other issues, the fact of silence has not. Fully 92 percent of the one hundred wealthiest billionaires said nothing at all in public about the many specific policy issues related to abortion. A similar 85 percent maintained a public silence about same- sex marriage.
Notably, roughly the same proportion— 84 percent— of the billionaires
said nothing at all in public about issues related to immigration policy.
Nothing about whether overall levels of immigration should be raised or
lowered; whether special new measures should be taken to stop illegal
immigration from Mexico or to bar potential terrorists from the United
States; whether high- skilled and low- skilled workers should be treated differently; whether undocumented immigrants currently living in the United
States should or should not be offered a path to citizenship; or how to
deal with refugees from countries devastated by war. Nothing about any
of those matters or about any other concrete aspect of immigration policy.
Most of the wealthiest billionaires— in public, at least— were totally silent.
A third building block in our evidence about stealth politics is the fact that in most or all cases, billionaires’ silence has almost certainly been a matter of c hoice. It has been intentional.
How can we know this? Few billionaires have commented openly about
their motives, and we lack psychic insight into exactly what they think. But in this case, the intentionality seems close to self- evident. Billionaires are highly newsworthy. Millions of Americans seem eager to hear about almost anything a billionaire says or does. So journalists and TV interviewers have strong, audience- based incentives to provide megaphones for billionaires to talk about anything they want to say. If billionaires wanted to speak out about public policy, they could easily do so.
Just about any billionaire who wanted to, for example, could easily pub-
lish an op- ed about public policy in his or her local newspaper. Or grant the great boon of a policy- oriented interview to a local TV reporter. Or, even more easily, make a policy comment on a blog. Many of the wealthiest billionaires could make the national news just about any day of the
week by appearing on a radio or TV talk show, or by giving an interview
to a national newspaper or magazine. Moreover, if one of the wealthiest
132
chapter six
billionaires were somehow denied access to the media, he or she (usually
he) could simply buy a newspaper company or a TV station to amplify his or her political views. The fact that billionaires have rarely addressed the major issues we studied in any public way clearly indicates that most billionaires simply do not want to speak out in public about such issues.
Exactly why they have not spoken is a harder question, which once again highlights the limits on what we can learn. The near universality of silence— or of very infrequent and sketchy comments— by billionaires
on all the diverse issues we have studied suggests that some of the rea-
sons for that silence probably apply broadly to many topics. The most
obvious reason: to say anything specific concerning a political issue about which many people disagree with each other is to risk offending someone.
Perhaps many someones. Offended political activists on one side or the
other might engage in noisy and unpleasant protests. Protests or boycotts by customers or investors in a billionaire’s business might dent the stock price or hurt the firm’s bottom line. Why risk it? Why not just keep quiet?
This is the same sort of logic that presumably tends to keep most bil-
lionaires quiet about sensitive topics concerning race, religion, lifestyle, or sexual orientation, as well as about politics. But motivations for engaging in stealth politics go well beyond that, as is reflected in certain differences among the policy areas we studied.
A fourth building block in our evidence of stealth politics is that, in
certain policy areas, many or most billionaires appear to favor, and to quietly work for, policies that ar
e opposed by large majorities of Americans.
Not so much on the issues of abortion or same- sex marriage. In those
cases, the libertarian inclinations of many billionaires are not very distant from the evolving public consensus on accepting same- sex relation-
ships and on protecting the right of women— at least under some circum-
stances— to have abortions.
But there appears to be a particularly big gap between billionaires and
the general public on certain other issues, including policies related to Social Security. A good many billionaires want to cut guaranteed Social Security benefits. Many favor either outright cuts, or benefit decreases
through deferred retirement ages or reduced cost- of- living adjustments, or the abandonment of benefit guarantees altogether— moving to private
accounts and leaving retirees at the mercy of stock market fluctuations.
Many polls and surveys show that just about any such cut in guaranteed
benefits would be anathema to overwhelming majorities of the American
public. Yet quite a few billionaires (some of them mobilized by their un-
what is to be done about billionaires?
133
usually outspoken fellow billionaire, Pete Peterson) have devoted a great deal of money and energy to a multiyear campaign to cut Social Security. Many billionaires have contributed large sums of money to political parties and candidates (most of them economically conservative Republicans) who— quietly, for the most part— have worked for Social Security
cuts or privatization.
Similarly, a significant subset of billionaires— 12 percent of them— have supported policy- specific organizations dedicated to entirely abolishing the estate tax. There are indications that many other billionaires— whose enormous estates are among the very few subject to the tax, and whose
heirs have the most to lose from it— likewise want to abolish the estate
tax. But most ordinary Americans, when asked sensibly designed survey
questions, say they favor keeping estate tax rates on very large estates at a substantial level.
Again, many billionaires have actively sought substantial or increased
levels of immigration by highly skilled but low- salaried foreign workers, who can enhance their companies’ profits. Hardly any billionaires have
Billionaires and Stealth Politics Page 20
