Has corporate money begun to lose its grip on American politics?

In this video, I examine the extraordinary result of the Michigan Democratic Senate primary, where Dr Abdul El-Sayed defeated the corporate-backed establishment candidate despite being dramatically outspent. It follows the victory of Zohran Mamdani in New York and raises a much bigger question than simply who won one election.

I argue that this is really a story about political economy: who politics exists to serve. For decades, both major American parties have relied heavily on corporate funding and lobbying. Increasingly, however, many voters appear to be rejecting that model and are demanding Representatives and Senators prepared to challenge concentrated economic power rather than accommodate it.

The media response has been revealing. Much attention has focused on whether insurgent candidates can win future elections rather than why so many Democratic voters chose them in the first place.

I also consider what these developments might mean beyond the United States. Similar questions are emerging in Britain, where concerns over the influence of large corporations, lobbying and political donations continue to grow. Could this mark the beginning of a broader movement that puts people ahead of corporate interests?

If politics is ultimately about deciding who holds power, this election result may matter far more than many commentators currently appreciate.

This is the audio version:

The Debate Ammunition for this video is available here.

This is the transcript:

Is corporate power losing its grip on politics? That's the question I want to ask, because some Democrats in the USA have sent out a powerful message this week. Voters in Michigan have rejected the Democratic Party establishment in the Senate primary elections held in that state this week. They chose a radical candidate over the mainstream corporate-backed one. And the mainstream candidate spent four times more money than that radical candidate, and they still lost.

The consequence is that the mainstream media seems shocked, and the reaction is as revealing as the election itself. Something important may be changing in US politics, and maybe that signals a change in the rest of the world as well.

The media appears deeply uncomfortable with this result. Now, to understand that, you must understand something about US politics.

We in the UK think of the USA as a two-party country, the Democrats versus the Republicans, but it's more complicated than that. The Republicans have fights between the MAGA, the Make America Great Again faction, which supports Trump, and its traditional corporate interest members.

The Democrats have also been dominated by corporate interests: politicians bought by big donations to do big businesses' bidding. But now there is a resurgent left-wing within the Democrats in the USA, and they are taking on the corporate Democrats, and they're winning.

And the importance is that the factions within these parties hold elections to choose their candidates for the mainstream elections for the House and the Senate in the USA. And that's where these fights are seen and won or lost, and that's what we're talking about here. We're talking about a fight within the Democrats for control of the election process in that party.

So, why is the media so uncomfortable? Their reports emphasised the corporate Democrats establishment's defeat. That shock is real. The party of Obama, Clinton, and Biden is being rejected by voters in places like Michigan and New York. People are reclaiming their voice in this party, and the media, which is funded by the same corporate interests as the Democrat establishment, just do not know what to say about that.

They're questioning whether Dr Abdul El-Sayed, who won this primary election in Michigan, can win the actual Senate election in November. They're not asking why Democratic voters chose him. Instead, they're pushing that question into the background. They're trying to ignore the fact that there is an obvious insurgency inside the Democrats, which is rejecting the corporate line, and they are trying to pretend that everything is carrying on as normal.

But the reality is that voters in places like Michigan are rejecting the corporate politics that have dominated that country and are choosing something different. They are choosing candidates like Zohran Mamdani, who won the New York mayoral election, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who also represents part of New York in the US House of Representatives. And now Dr Abdul El-Sayed, who is going to fight to be the new Senator from Michigan, having defeated the sitting corporate Democrat's Representative for the right to do so.

The establishment lost the fight with El Sayed despite overwhelming advantages. The sitting Representative, Haley Stevens, who has represented the Democrats for four terms, had the backing of the Democratic Party hierarchy. She also found around four times more campaign money to fight this primary election than El Sayed did, but financial power could not secure her a victory.

Voters in this widely publicised primary election rejected the corporate favourite, even if only by a small margin, and what this really proves is that money can't buy you love, as the Beatles once said. Haley Stevens has found that out the hard way.

Saying all that, the labels being bandied about now reveal much of the real political argument going on here. Trump immediately branded the victor, Dr Abdul El-Sayed, as a communist. That description has no basis in reality. He's not even a socialist by most definitions. He's just a person who cares. But the label Communist is used to discredit the left throughout the USA, and by Trump in particular. Caring is not something you should do according to them. And the deeper issue about using this label is that it hides the discussion about who politics should serve, and people are increasingly engaging with that issue and are rejecting politics for corporate interests.

Robert Reich, the former Labour Secretary under Bill Clinton, had much to say on this on his Substack, and I think he's a reliable source of information about what the left in the USA is thinking at this point in time. He offered a much better explanation of what is really happening.

Voters have chosen, he says, someone prepared to fight. They want politicians who will challenge entrenched power in the USA, and the corporate Democrats, those who are backed by big business, are seen as far too compromised to do that. Big money has corrupted too much of politics in the USA, and that is what many voters are reacting against. That is what they want candidates to fight.

And this is then fundamentally about political economy and the fight over who has power in US politics, and in the USA as a whole. Wealth is increasingly shaping political decision-making, and people are perceiving that, and they are perceiving the threat to our democracies as a result. Corporate interests are receiving protection and privilege from our politicians, and that is plain to see both in the USA and here in the UK. And meanwhile, ordinary people are too often ignored. Democracy has been weakened by the power of money, especially in the USA, but also here, and voters are beginning to push back.

This is the basis of populist uprising everywhere. When people support the far-right, what they're doing is saying they're fed up with corporate power. Unfortunately, they seem to be choosing others with corporate power to do the pushback.

On the left, people are realising you can't push back against corporate power by backing those with corporate backing, and so we're seeing a genuine rise in interest on the left in alternatives.

In the UK, that's being seen in the rise of the Green Party. It is being seen in the rise of the disenfranchised left-wing who are willing to ask questions about this whole process. In the USA, we saw the reaction in Michigan, but let me be explicit.

The challenge that was seen in Michigan is the same as is required here. Labour reflects many of the same corporate interests that the corporate Democrats do. Big pharma, big tech, and big weapons businesses are all trying to influence Labour in the UK, including with donations, and they are winning influence, and they are profiting as a result when ordinary people quite clearly are not.

And people are tired of welfare for the wealthy and for corporate interests, and they want action that puts people before profit. The issues are remarkably similar on both sides of the Atlantic. People want politics to serve people again. It's not an unreasonable ask, and as a result, they're pushing back against corporate power in politics. And this is what the result in Michigan is all about.

It's not about one candidate up against the Democratic Party machine. It reflects growing frustration with corporate politics. Voters are demanding representatives who will fight for them.

The question is whether this movement will continue to grow. Has it got the substance to really take over the Democrats in the USA? Can it be anything more than a little bit of a sideshow? Can it move beyond being a nuisance? Or can it change the shape of US politics? And if it were to spread, can it change the shape of politics here in the UK as well?

Democracy works best when people come before corporate power, and that's what people want, and now they're willing to say it. And more importantly, they're finding people - Mamdani, AOC and now Abdul El-Sayed - who are saying they will fight this cause. Long may that happen, I say, but that's my opinion. What's yours?

There's a poll down below. Let us have your comments. Please, like and share this video if that's what you want to do. And please do subscribe and hit the bell button because that means you get notifications when we produce a new video. And if you'd like to buy Tom and me a coffee, that would be great.

Poll

PDF of article