We’re not used to thinking of America as having oligarchs — but don’t we? An oligarch is sometimes defined as “a very rich business leader with a great deal of political influence.” Let’s take a look at two such American men who have been making the news lately.
Until now, the average American may not have considered Jared Kushner to be rich enough to be considered an “oligarch.” Recently, however, the New York Times revealed that Kushner has scored a $2 billion investment from the main Saudi sovereign wealth fund.
The investment was awarded to Kushner’s newly formed private equity firm despite concerns voiced by advisers to the Saudi fund. Kushner, whose fund has not publicly disclosed a focus, has little experience in private equity. Nevertheless, advisers’ concerns were overruled by the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.
MBS, as the crown prince is called by familiars, and Kushner were on a first-name basis when Kushner was an adviser to his father-in-law Donald Trump while Trump was president.
The Times reported that ethics experts say the current deal creates the appearance of potential payback for Kushner’s actions in the White House — or of a bid for future favor if Trump seeks and wins another presidential term in 2024.
The Saudis agreed to pay Kushner’s firm a 1.25 percent management fee — which the Saudi advisers considered “excessive.” On a $2 billion investment, that rate will pay Kushner’s firm $25 million a year.
Foreigners can’t donate to American political campaigns, but — presto chango! — that $25 million would suddenly be transformed into clean American cash.
Wouldn’t you love to know where those earning will be spent? I would. They could pay a lot of Donald Trump’s expenses on the campaign trail in the 2024 election.
When Kushner’s Affinity Fund sought to explain to the Securities and Exchange Commission why there weren’t any significant institutional investors from the U.S., the Fund responded: “The Affinity principal would like to avoid media attention at this time.”
I’ll just bet he would!
Funneling money to a politician’s campaign isn’t the only way to enable government leaders. That leads us to the second American man who’s been making news in recent days: Elon Musk.
Musk, reputedly the richest man in the world with a net worth of approximately $250 billion, has made a cash offer of $43 billion to buy Twitter and take it private.
Why would the owner of SpaceX and Tesla be interested in a social media company? For one thing, Musk calls himself a “free speech absolutist,” opposed to any restrictions on what someone can say online.
One reason Musk may have adopted his “free speech absolutist” position is that, in 2018, the SEC filed a complaint against him after he tweeted that he had secured funding to take Tesla private and investors lost money as a result of Tesla stock prices fluctuating after he tweeted.
Musk reached a settlement with the SEC which, among other things, required Musk’s tweets to be internally reviewed before being posted when they concern company information. That restriction is still in effect, and it clearly chafes: even though Musk entered into the settlement voluntarily, he has recently sued the SEC to have it reversed.
In another manifestation of his opposition to any restrictions on “free speech,” Musk recently tweeted: “Starlink has been told by some governments (not Ukraine) to block Russian news sources. We will not do so unless at gunpoint.”
Starlink is a satellite internet constellation operated by Musk’s company SpaceX. It currently provides satellite internet access to 29 countries. Musk is said to harbor an ambition to extend its coverage to the whole world.
Twitter, it should be remembered, was former President Donald Trump’s favorite online platform until he was permanently suspended from it because of his support of the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. Although Musk hasn’t commented publicly on the former president’s suspension, he has clearly indicated he thinks Twitter is heading in the wrong direction by imposing any restrictions on speech other than what is required by law.
There have been plenty of examples in recent years of the harm that can result from unrestricted irresponsible and disruptive speech. Trump’s use of Twitter to attempt to instigate an insurrection to overturn a fair and free election is just one of them.
If Musk succeeds in his hostile takeover of Twitter, Trump would undoubtedly be a beneficiary of the new direction Musk would set for the company — another boon for Trump should he run for president again in 2024, but a grave danger to the continued existence of our American democracy.
Oligarchs can unleash the worst in government when they employ their wealth and power to support and enable corrupt leaders. That’s why the Department of Justice launched “Task Force Kleptoculture” to enforce sanctions on Russian oligarchs in response to the invasion of Ukraine.
We need a law that would allow us to launch a similar response to the enabling of corruption by our own American oligarchs.
Joy Fisher is a resident of Waimea.
