Money Talks, Sometimes It Even Votes for You

dall-e image creator

Who really has a louder voice in a democracy? A citizen casting a vote, or a billionaire funding a political campaign? Political participation is a cornerstone of democratic societies, allowing citizens to engage in the processes that shape their governance. In capitalist systems, however, this participation is increasingly influenced by economic forces that often overshadow the voices of ordinary citizens. Political engagement no longer only occurs in parliaments and voting booths in today's democracies; it also frequently shows itself in corporate messaging, media narratives, campaign contributions, and even our daily consumption patterns. This development calls into question how citizens negotiate these changing landscapes and who actually has the most influence over democratic life.

Electoral Participation and the Financialization of Democracy

Electoral participation is one of the most visible arenas where economic power interferes with political participation. As capitalist structures increasingly dominate political systems, the ability to influence elections has become heavily tied to financial resources.

Elections have turned into profit-driven affairs in many nations, including the US. To run a competitive campaign, political candidates, especially those aiming for high office, need a significant amount of financing. The multi-million dollar budgets required to be visible to voters include travel expenses, polling, web marketing, and television advertisements. Thus, the capacity to raise money has emerged as a key factor in determining election success, providing a competitive edge to wealthy people, businesses, and interest groups that can make substantial financial contributions to political candidates and parties. This financial inequality results in a situation where political campaigns are increasingly geared toward those who can afford them, rather than those who may best represent the will of the people.

The extent to which money influences political outcomes is further demonstrated by a study conducted on the elections for the U.S. House of Representatives between 2000 and 2018. Campaign spending and electoral success are clearly positively correlated, according to the analysis, especially for non-incumbent politicians. Challengers mostly rely on financial resources to increase their visibility, while incumbents already enjoy the advantages of established networks and name recognition. As a result, special interest groups tend to channel more funds toward incumbents, perceiving them as safer bets. In addition to having a simpler route to reelection, this produces a feedback cycle where incumbents collect extra campaign cash that they can use to increase their power inside party institutions or completely suppress competitors. These dynamics show how campaign finance practices can strengthen political power and discourage democratic competition by prioritizing access over ability through economic processes rather than by directly suppressing voters. Yet campaign finance is only one side of the coin, media ownership represents another powerful channel through which capital shapes democracy.

Media Monopolization 

Media ownership comes up as a key element when talking about how capital affects political participation. In modern democracies, the media is often referred to as the "fourth estate," expected to act as a watchdog that holds those in power accountable. It should ideally inform citizens, promote public discourse, and guarantee openness in government. However, media independence is frequently among the first to suffer in regimes when democratic principles are undermined. Media organizations can turn into political influence instruments that are used to create consent, restrict opposition, and shape narratives rather than acting in the public interest. By denying citizens access to vital information and a range of opinions, this media monopoly not only affects public conversation but also threatens genuine political participation. Hungary offers a compelling illustration of this.

The Fidesz administration, led by Viktor Orbán, has systematically changed the media environment. Independent media outlets have been forced to take a pro-government editorial stance or shut down after being acquired by businessmen with strong ties to the government. Reporters Without Borders claims that the Orbán administration now controls almost 80% of the nation's media resources thanks to these acquisitions, which are made through so-called "oligarchs."

Hungary’s oldest newspaper, Népszabadság, was suddenly shut down in 2016 after being acquired by a businessman close to the government. Roughly 500 pro-government media outlets were merged under one umbrella group and transferred to an Orbán-aligned foundation in 2018. Nearly the whole editorial staff of Index.hu, the biggest online news portal in Hungary, resigned in 2020 after the editor-in-chief was fired for political reasons. These changes demonstrate the extent to which Hungary's media landscape has grown dependent on the government.

Furthermore, the Hungarian government controls the media through advertising budgets in addition to ownership. The government is the biggest marketer in the nation and has a significant financial impact. Mérték Media Monitor found that pro-government media stations receive 90% of state advertising expenditures. The long-term viability of independent journalism is seriously threatened by this financial dependence.

Spending millions of dollars on political advertisements, the government has also started to actively use social media platforms in recent years. The pro-government faction, which includes Fidesz and its affiliated groups, spent €4.3 million on Google and Meta ads between December 31, 2023, and June 1, 2024. On the other hand, the total sum spent by the 14 opposition parties and their media affiliates was only €839,000. This dynamic shows how capital, whether through media monopolization or campaign money, may significantly influence political participation by making opposition invisible rather than entirely banning it.

Corporate activism

Businesses today are socially concerned citizens rather than merely profit-driven organizations. The concept underlying this shift is known as "corporate activism" or "brand activism." Brand activism is the term used to describe businesses that assume responsibility for social and political issues in addition to commercial ones. By employing this tactic, companies hope to promote societal change and offer value in the eyes of their clients. These businesses influence not only consumer choices but also civic behaviors through their widespread platforms and public advertising, increasingly influencing how people participate in democratic processes.

Hundreds of large firms, such as Starbucks, Twitter, and Levi's, started significant voter turnout initiatives during the 2020 U.S. presidential election. These included catch phrases like "Time to Vote" and "Your Voice, Your Power," and some businesses even provided paid time off for workers to cast votes. Although these initiatives were presented as neutral in public, several Republican lawmakers and conservative media accused these businesses of implicit partisanship because of the strong correlation between increased turnout and Democratic election success. These initiatives directly promoted electoral participation by lowering barriers to voting and presenting it as a civic obligation.

Ice cream company Ben & Jerry's, long associated with progressive causes, has gone a step further by incorporating activism into its corporate identity. During Israel’s war on Gaza in 2021, the company backed the Palestinian cause by declaring it would stop selling its goods in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This move led to legal disputes and strong criticism in the United States, including calls for divestment from American officials. These positions not only raised awareness of underrepresented issues but also prompted buyers to think about the moral and political effects of their purchasing decisions. By doing this, Ben & Jerry's made it harder to distinguish between activism and consumption, encouraging people to get involved in politics through public discourse and brand loyalty in addition to voting.

Economic Boycotts: a way of showing a political stance

With the rise of corporate activism, consumer responses have also evolved from passive disapproval to active economic boycotts. Economic boycotts have begun to play a significant role in political participation as businesses take more and more political positions. This approach's main goal is to exert pressure on decision-makers to reevaluate current policies by using consumer power. Avoiding a product is only one aspect of a boycott's power; another is how it can change public opinion through coordinated, group opposition.

One of the most politically visible figures of recent times, Elon Musk and his company Tesla, have also been affected by such consumer boycotts. Backlash and boycott calls resulted from Musk's media endorsement of the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party during the German election campaign. Similarly, he triggered anti-Tesla protests throughout Europe by endorsing right-wing figures in the UK. Not only did customers reject Tesla's products, but some Tesla owners even disguised their vehicles' logos with those of other companies to avoid being targeted. The impact of the boycott was also evident in sales figures: Tesla's sales in France fell 41% in the first quarter of 2025, while sales in Germany declined 60% and 76% in January and February, respectively, which corresponded with the boycott campaign's peak ahead of the German elections in late February.

While Tesla’s case illustrates how individual political affiliations of corporate leaders can trigger backlash in Western markets, similar dynamics can be observed in other parts of the world though often shaped by different political structures and cultural contexts.

Following the arrest of a prominent opposition figure, who was seen by many as a potential presidential candidate, political tensions in Turkey led to a shift from traditional protests to economic action, with citizens increasingly resorting to boycotts against companies tied to the ruling party. Many people started reevaluating their purchasing patterns in response to social media appeals, concentrating on companies that were either directly or indirectly associated with the ruling party. 

Government authorities regarded this boycott differently, even though it was seen as a nonviolent way to protest government policy. Together, Minister of Industry and Technology Mehmet Fatih Kacır, Justice Minister Yılmaz Tunç, and Trade Minister Ömer Bolat characterized the boycott as a “national security threat” and defined it as a type of economic sabotage. This rhetoric emphasizes how strongly politicized consumer behavior is.

Conclusion: Rewriting the Rules of Participation

The way that political participation is changing shows that voting is no longer the only way that people can participate in democracy. Financial resources increasingly determine who has a voice, who is heard, and eventually who is in power under capitalist regimes. Campaign funding, media ownership, corporate messaging, and consumer activism are just a few examples of how capital has integrated itself into the very systems designed to guarantee equal political expression.

The conventional idea of democratic equality is called into question by this change. The playing field shifts away from citizens and toward economic elites when political influence is linked to wealth, whether through the capacity to finance campaigns, control media narratives, or influence public opinion through branding and consumption. In this way, capitalism frequently drowns out voters with louder, more expensive megaphones rather than completely silencing them.

Yet, as the examples of corporate activism and economic boycotts demonstrate, power does not flow in one direction. People are also adjusting. They are influencing conversation and holding business and political leaders responsible by using their online presence, consumer choices, and public pressure. This new political landscape offers new means of resistance and reform, but it also poses serious threats to democratic justice.

Ultimately, the question still stands: Can democracy endure in a system where money has the most influence? Or do democracies need to come up with new strategies to make sure that everyone's voice matters, not just the most powerful?