By Ali Zeraatpisheh

The growing role of influential billionaires in US elections has placed enormous financial resources in the hands of a small number of individuals who can help candidates finance campaigns, shape political advertising and support organizations working to influence federal policy.

Elon Musk, Miriam Adelson, Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Jeff Yass are some of the wealthy political donors whose spending warrants close examination.

By October 23, 2026, the 50 largest donors and organizations had contributed approximately $2.77 billion to the midterm election cycle, according to The Washington Post.

Republican-aligned contributors accounted for $1.67 billion, compared with $832 million from Democratic-aligned contributors, while another $264 million came from bipartisan and special-interest groups.

Musk had contributed $446 million, primarily to Republican-aligned political groups, including America PAC, the Senate Leadership Fund and the Congressional Leadership Fund.

Richard and Elizabeth Uihlein, the couple behind shipping-supplies company Uline, had contributed a combined $150 million, while financiers Jeff and Janine Yass had given approximately $110 million to political causes and candidates.

The largest Democratic-aligned donors included George Soros, whose contributions reached $102 million, and former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg, who had given $84.2 million.

LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman and his wife, Michelle Yee, had contributed approximately $41.2 million, while venture capitalists Marcus Andreessen and Ben Horowitz had directed about $92.2 million toward political groups, including organizations supporting cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence interests.

Other prominent contributors included casino billionaire Miriam Adelson, who had given $67.6 million, and hedge fund manager Ken Griffin, whose contributions reached $32.6 million.

How do big oil, Wall Street and big pharma finance political influence?

The oil and gas industry provides a clear example of sustained political spending. OpenSecrets estimates that the sector spent approximately $3.1 billion on federal lobbying between 1998 and 2025, compared with about $486.8 million spent by environmental groups over a comparable period.

ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and the American Petroleum Institute are among the major participants in this lobbying effort, which includes disputes over drilling, emissions rules and fossil-fuel development.

The spending has continued into the 2026 midterms. In August, ConocoPhillips contributed $1.5 million each to the Senate Leadership Fund and the Congressional Leadership Fund, two Republican-aligned super PACs, while Chevron gave $750,000 to the Senate Leadership Fund.

Wall Street has also increased its efforts to influence federal policymaking. A Reuters analysis published in February 2026 found that 38 major US banks, together with seven leading industry groups, spent $86.8 million lobbying the White House, federal agencies and lawmakers in 2025.

Their lobbying intensified amid disputes over financial regulation and competition from cryptocurrency companies, as banks sought to protect their position in a rapidly changing financial sector.

Pharmaceutical companies face a different but equally consequential policy battle: the cost of prescription medicines.

A report published by the US Senate's Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations documented that Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Bristol Myers Squibb spent a combined $351.6 million on federal lobbying and $34.1 million on campaign contributions between 2004 and 2023.

The companies' spending overlapped with years of congressional debate over drug prices and healthcare regulation.

The pharmaceutical industry's campaign contributions have continued during the current election cycle. The Pharmaceutical Reform Alliance, which campaigns for changes to drug-pricing policy, reported that pharmaceutical companies, affiliated political committees and trade associations contributed nearly $17 million to congressional campaigns from 2023 through June 2026, including about $9 million to Republicans and $7 million to Democrats.

Who funds the politicians deciding America's wars and weapons spending?

The US war of aggression against Iran has exposed the financial stakes of military policy, as the unprovoked and illegal aggression depleted American weapons stockpiles and created pressure for new spending on missiles, air defenses and other military equipment.

On March 19, 2026, TIME reported that War Secretary Peter Hegseth had confirmed a Pentagon request for $200 billion in additional funding, while President Donald Trump had called for a $1.5 trillion military budget for 2027.

Lockheed Martin is among the companies positioned to benefit from the demand for replacement weapons.

It produces Patriot air-defense systems and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors, both used against incoming missiles.

The Pentagon had already reached agreements to increase annual Patriot interceptor production from 600 to 2,000 and THAAD production from 96 to 400, although expanding production will take time.

Each THAAD interceptor costs approximately $12.7 million, while each Patriot PAC-3 interceptor costs about $3.7 million.

RTX, the parent company of Raytheon, also stands to gain from the demand for weapons used in the Iran war.

Raytheon produces Tomahawk cruise missiles and Patriot systems, and entered into agreements with the Pentagon in February to increase production of Tomahawks and several types of interceptors.

General Dynamics, Boeing and Northrop Grumman are also major suppliers of military equipment and technologies tied to US defense spending.

These companies also spend heavily to influence the political process that determines military budgets. The Project On Government Oversight reported in July that six major contractors, Lockheed Martin, RTX, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop Grumman and Huntington Ingalls Industries, spent a combined $21.2 million on lobbying in the first quarter of 2026.

Their lobbyists were pressing Congress on military legislation as the administration sought a record $1.5 trillion military budget.

Campaign contributions have also reached lawmakers responsible for military spending. In May, Defense News reported that the military industry had donated nearly $5 million to members of Congress through PACs and individual contributions during the first part of 2026.

Representative Ken Calvert, who chairs the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, had raised roughly $200,000 from PACs and individuals associated with arms companies.

Representative Adam Smith, the leading Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, received nearly $130,000 from industry PACs and executives in the first quarter.

How does big tech use its money to influence the laws Congress passes?

The cryptocurrency industry offers a concrete example of how political spending can be tied to a legislative agenda.

In October 2026, Reuters reported that crypto companies and affiliated political groups had spent approximately $176 million across more than 100 midterm election races.

The industry's largest super PAC, Fairshake, and its affiliates accounted for about $150.8 million, with major funding from Coinbase, Ripple and venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.

The industry has already seen a significant legislative result. Congress passed the GENIUS Act in 2025, establishing a federal framework for stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency designed to maintain a stable value.

The industry is also seeking passage of the CLARITY Act, which would change how cryptocurrency markets are regulated.

Artificial intelligence companies are pursuing their own legislative priorities. A March 2026 investigation by Sludge reported that the Innovative Future Collective, an organization whose advisers include corporate lobbyists, had sponsored trips for congressional staff to visit technology companies, including Meta and Amazon.

The reporting linked these activities to an industry campaign for federal legislation that would restrict states from imposing their own AI safeguards.

Corporate donations to presidential projects have also raised questions about access to the administration.

A June 2026 analysis by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington identified Meta, Amazon, Coinbase and Google among companies that contributed to multiple projects associated with Trump.

The organization found that 13 of the 15 largest corporate contributors had met with Trump or joined him at events or on trips.

The wider danger is visible in the scale of corporate spending. Public Citizen reported in August 2026 that disclosed corporate contributions toward federal election spending had reached $646 million, including $206 million from cryptocurrency companies and $62 million from Big Tech and businesses with AI and data-center interests. The organization warned that undisclosed funding could mean the actual total was higher.

These figures leave a difficult question for America's dying democracy: when industries can spend hundreds of millions of dollars to support political allies, attack opponents and press for favorable legislation, how much influence remains with citizens who have one vote to cast?