Larry Ellison and his son, David, moved closer to a vast media empire on September 21 when Paramount settled a lawsuit challenging its purchase of Warner Bros. Discovery. Business Insider reported that the $111 billion deal would bring two movie studios, HBO, CBS, CNN and dozens of other networks under their combined control. NPR reported that the settlement still needed a judge’s approval, so the acquisition was not yet complete.
Two days later, Reuters reported that Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg and Sundar Pichai are expected at President Trump’s Thursday dinner for Chinese President Xi Jinping. ABC News reported that AI safety is among the concerns surrounding the meeting, placing the technology and its powerful business leaders in the same spotlight.
The Centercratic position is straightforward: America needs safeguards against the political power of its richest technology leaders, just as it needs safeguards for artificial intelligence. The question is not whether these men may buy companies, change political views or attend White House dinners, but whether their influence can outweigh what voters want. Their business decisions can affect the news Americans receive, while their political spending can help elect the officials responsible for overseeing those businesses.
Elon Musk’s political shift was striking: Reuters reported that he had previously voted for Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden before endorsing Trump in July 2024. By December, Reuters reported that Musk had given $259 million to groups supporting Trump’s campaign and become a close adviser during the presidential transition. The Wall Street Journal reported in June 2026 that Larry Ellison had quietly given roughly $45 million to a nonprofit supporting Trump’s 2024 election efforts, without required public disclosure.
Mark Zuckerberg’s record shows another kind of change: The Associated Press reported in January 2021 that he considered allowing Trump to keep using Facebook too dangerous. Four years later, Reuters reported that Meta would end its U.S. fact-checking program and ease restrictions on immigration and gender discussions as Zuckerberg sought better relations with Trump’s incoming administration. In that report, Zuckerberg described the changes as restoring free expression, but the timing gives Americans reason to question whether political pressure helped determine the rules.
Decisions about which news stories to pursue should not depend on pleasing a president or protecting an owner’s relationship with the White House. In announcing Monday’s settlement, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said Paramount agreed to a board to help protect independent reporting at CBS and CNN. But the proposed settlement lets the company’s own directors choose that board’s members, raising a fair question about how firmly they will challenge the people who appointed them.
Safeguards should require major political donors to be identified before elections, including those who send their money through groups that keep their names private. Government contracts should be awarded through open competition, with independent checks to make sure a donor’s friendship with the president does not affect the choice. A business leader working inside the government should have to step aside from decisions affecting his companies, rather than asking the public to trust his judgment.
The strongest argument against this criticism is that business leaders must work with elected presidents, protect their employees and answer to the people who own their companies. That is reasonable, and neither a political donation nor a change of position should be treated as proof that someone has done something wrong. But clear rules protect honest businesses as well as voters, and those rules must apply equally to wealthy supporters of the Democratic and Republican parties.
Wealth may buy access to the president and control over a newsroom, but it should never buy control over the government or the news Americans receive. Elected officials must serve all Americans, not give special treatment to the wealthy people who helped put them in office.
Visit Centercratic.party to learn more about how we can protect our democracy.
Of course the wealthy control this country, money talks. Money controls the government officials, elected representatives, and much of the infrastructure of the country.