As a high school student, I’ve been told numerous times that my vote matters and that it is my civic responsibility as a citizen to vote. But, at the end of the day, what impact do our votes have? The phrase “for the people, by the people” has been one that has been used for centuries to describe the American government. It is a phrase of pride, that our government values the opinions and needs of the American public. However, as I keep researching U.S. politics, it becomes more apparent that our government does not serve the people–it is an oligarchy serving only the wealthiest individuals and corporations.
Not only do politicians make decisions in favor of corporations, they make decisions that harm the people they’re supposed to represent in the first place. During Trump’s first term, he nominated three Supreme Court Justices, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, and all of them have only strengthened corporate power in America. In July 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Chevron doctrine in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, a doctrine that provided discretion to federal agencies in interpreting ambiguous laws. This ultimately would mean that it would be harder to regulate industries, which benefits the corporations because regulations normally mean an increased production cost to ensure health or safety. All three of Trump’s appointed Justices voted to overturn the Chevron doctrine, and “created a super majority on the Supreme Court that favors a scaling back of the government’s role in enforcing corporate accountability,” (Posner, 2024).
While we cannot vote for Supreme Court justices, we do vote for Congressmembers and the president. Through our votes, we place our trust into these representatives to prioritize and advocate for our needs. However, no matter who someone votes for or which party the candidate belongs to, the values and interests of big corporations tend to shine through in political decisions. While we generally don’t think of the U.S. government as corrupt, corporations leverage political donations to influence political decisions. Trump’s administration will be no different–companies including Boeing, Google, and Toyota have all donated $1 million to Trump’s inauguration fund, meaning that they already have their foots in the door if they need to ask Trump for a “favor” whether that means de-regulating their industries or lowering their taxes (da Silva, 2025).
Today, money in politics is crucial. Most candidates, especially Congressional candidates, will win if they spend more money than their competitors. Last year, almost 95% of races in the House and 88% of races in the Senate were won by the top spending candidates (Did Money Win?, n.d.). Super PACs, which are political action committees that can raise and spend unlimited funds, have created a political landscape where corporate power keeps increasing. Last year, super PACs raised $5 billion and spent around $2.7 billion on things like ads or other forms of communication to sway the public opinion in favor of one candidate (2024 Outside Spending, by Super PAC, n.d.). Once candidates win, they’re essentially indebted to these corporations that supported them during their campaigns, and decisions are made in favor of corporate interests once they step into office. As a soon-to-be-voter, this is disheartening information–we hope that these candidates will step up and make a positive change in our communities, but most of the time, we’re put on the back burner while corporations are enjoying more and more amenities and benefits.
This is apparent in one of the biggest areas of complaint within American society–our healthcare system. Compared to other countries, our government doesn’t do much to alleviate citizens of the burdening costs of healthcare. In the U.S., we pay some of the highest prices for prescription medications in the world–in fact, we pay almost 3 times more than the average price in 33 other countries (Mulcahy et al., 2024). Why? Well, both political parties receive donations from pharmaceutical and healthcare product companies.
During last year’s election alone, the pharmaceutical industry donated $15 million to political parties, meaning that both parties have the motivation and incentive to continue to make it harder for average Americans to receive crucial healthcare through policy development and when determining regulations for the pharmaceutical industry. (Pharmaceuticals/Health Products PACs Contributions to Candidates, 2023-2024, n.d.). Trump has already revoked an executive order that allowed the Center for Medicare experimental drug pricing models, one of which would have allowed a $2 cap for certain generic drugs for Medicare recipients (Weissman, 2025). For many politicians, many of whom are already worth millions of dollars, getting richer by helping corporations is more important than prioritizing the health of the people that they are supposed to represent.
With Trump’s return to the presidency in late January, we can expect a continuation of corporate power in American politics, and as the Supreme Court and Trump’s administration continue to be influenced by corporate dollars in politics, corporations can anticipate an even stronger political influence. Corporate influence is going to keep influencing our daily lives, from healthcare to education to the environment, and we need to fight against corporations in politics to ensure a democracy “for the people, by the people”.
References
da Silva, J. (2025, January 10). Boeing and Google each give $1m for Trump inauguration. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cgly2krddwgo
Did Money Win? (n.d.). OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/elections-overview/winning-vs-spending
Mulcahy, A. W., Schwam, D., & Lovejoy, S. L. (2024, February 1). International Prescription Drug Price Comparisons. RAND. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA788-3.html
Pharmaceuticals/Health Products PACs contributions to candidates, 2023-2024. (n.d.). OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/political-action-committees-pacs/industry-detail/H04/2024
Posner, M. (2024, July 8). The Supreme Court’s elimination of the Chevron Doctrine will undermine corporate accountability. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelposner/2024/07/08/the-supreme-courts-elimination of-the-chevron-doctrine-will-undermine-corporate-accountability/
2024 Outside Spending, by Super PAC. (n.d.). OpenSecrets. https://www.opensecrets.org/outside-spending/super_pacs
Weissman, J. (2025, January 23). Trump scrapped a proposed $2 drug program for seniors. But why? Yahoo!Finance. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-scrapped-a-proposed-2-drug-program-for-seniors but-why-181219100.html