When Americans think about “money in politics,” the conversation usually turns to campaign donations. Those are tightly regulated by the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because they are intended to influence the outcome of elections—who gets elected and who doesn’t. But not all money flowing into politics falls under this category.
Take, for example, the donations to President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee. These were not political contributions in the legal sense. They were not made to support a candidate’s run for office or to sway voters before Election Day. Because of this, the FEC does not regulate inaugural donations in the same way it regulates campaign contributions
Yet, it would be a mistake to assume these donations don’t affect government. They do—just differently.
Inaugural Donations and Currying Favor
Inaugural contributions don’t buy campaign ads or fund get-out-the-vote drives. Instead, they curry favor with a sitting president. When corporations or wealthy individuals give to an inauguration committee, they are investing in access, goodwill, and visibility.
These contributions provide resources for elaborate ceremonies and celebrations that bolster the image of the presidency. They also allow the administration to showcase legitimacy and strength. In this way, inaugural donations function less as electoral influence and more as political relationship-building with the executive branch once the election is over.
A Modern Parallel: Disney and Trump
We see echoes of this dynamic today with how Disney has handled its relationship with President Trump. Recently, Disney and its subsidiary ABC took actions against late-night host Jimmy Kimmel. Unlike a government restriction, this wasn’t about the First Amendment—the Constitution prohibits the government, not private corporations, from censoring speech. Disney had no legal obligation to silence or punish Kimmel.
So why do it? The likeliest answer: to curry favor with the president and protect Disney’s financial interests under his administration. By siding with Trump in this matter, Disney bolsters his power—not power granted by law, but influence gained through corporate capitulation.
Money in Politics, Redefined
This reveals a broader truth: money and influence in politics extend far beyond campaign donations. Inaugural funds, corporate appeasement, and business decisions shaped by presidential pressure all show how financial power flows through our system outside of elections.
Campaign finance laws exist to protect elections. But influence after elections—the favors, the access, the decisions made to placate power—often escape regulation. That doesn’t make them harmless. These practices can amplify the authority of a president, distort the balance between government and corporate power, and chip away at constitutional norms like free expression.
Conclusion
When we talk about “money in politics,” we need to expand the conversation. It’s not just about campaign donations and Super PACs. It’s also about inaugural committees, corporate appeasement, and financial decisions made to win favor with those already in office.
The case of Trump’s inauguration committee—and now Disney’s handling of Jimmy Kimmel—shows us that influence doesn’t end when the ballots are counted. If anything, a new kind of influence begins: one where money strengthens power not at the ballot box, but in the halls of government and boardrooms of America.