Why Endorsing Candidates Has Become ‘Terrible’ for Business

Episode Summary

Executive Summary: This Votonomics episode examines how U.S. elections now intersect with corporate boards, CEOs, and billionaire donors. It focuses on Elon Musk’s unusually public support for Donald Trump, the Washington Post’s decision not to endorse, and whether CEOs are returning to political neutrality or reacting to polarization, backlash, and customer risk.

Main Topics: Elon Musk’s political role in the 2024 election (Priority: 5/5): The conversation explores Musk’s shift from business mogul to active Trump surrogate, including his public appearances, political messaging, and possible influence in a future Trump administration. Corporate neutrality vs. political engagement (Priority: 5/5): Charles Elson argues CEOs historically avoided elections, but the Trump era, Citizens United, George Floyd-era activism, and intense polarization pushed many companies into political speech—then triggered backlash. Boardroom conflicts and governance concerns (Priority: 5/5): The episode frames Musk’s political activity and potential government role as a board governance problem, highlighting conflicts of interest, board independence, and the risks of mixing corporate power with policy influence. Washington Post and newsroom endorsements (Priority: 4/5): The discussion uses the Washington Post’s non-endorsement decision as a case study in whether media owners’ business interests, political risk, and claims of journalistic neutrality shape editorial choices. Billionaires, dark money, and election spending (Priority: 4/5): The hosts and guests note that both sides are receiving major donor support, with high-profile money from Bloomberg and Gates for Harris and enormous, more visible spending from Musk for Trump. Tesla, regulation, and business upside/downside (Priority: 4/5): Musk’s political alignment is tied to potential regulatory relief, government contracts, and defense/space opportunities under Trump, but also possible backlash from Tesla’s largely liberal customer base.

Key Arguments: Musk’s political involvement is unusually direct and financially massive, making him one of the most consequential political donors and potentially a future policy influencer. His support for Trump is not just ideological; it could protect Musk’s businesses from regulation, investigations, and unfavorable policy under a Harris administration. Charles Elson argues CEOs should generally stay out of politics because political stances alienate half of customers and employees and undermine corporate cohesion. Corporate political activism increased after the Trump era, the 2020 election, and the George Floyd summer, but that activism produced backlash and boycotts. The Washington Post’s non-endorsement can be read as an attempt to avoid bias and preserve credibility, though it is complicated by Bezos’s government-contract interests. Elson sees the current CEO retreat as a return to tradition rather than simply fear of Trump retaliation; the bigger immediate risk is customer backlash. If Trump wins, Musk could gain contracts and influence; if Harris wins, existing investigations, security questions, and regulatory scrutiny could intensify. Tesla may face reputational and commercial pressure because its customer base is more liberal than Musk’s current political positioning. The discussion suggests that political spending and corporate influence are now more openly personalized, with billionaire owners acting less like passive donors and more like political actors.

Data Points: Bloomberg Daybreak U.S. Edition length: 15 minutes - Promotional intro for Bloomberg’s daily morning news podcast Musk political spending: above $130 million - Max Shafkin cites latest filings for Musk-related spending Projected total Musk spending: probably close to $200 million - Estimate including PAC spending, dark money, and additional races before Election Day Twitter/X acquisition cost: $44 billion - Referenced as part of Musk’s political-media influence machine Potential Harris support from Bloomberg and Gates: up to $50 million - Charles Elson and hosts mention quiet contributions in recent weeks Citizens United ruling year: 2010 - Discussed as the legal turning point that expanded corporate political spending Trump election reference: 2024 election within about a week / 10 days to go - Multiple references to the imminence of Election Day and recent filings

Pivotal Quotes: "Your money is being wasted, and the Department of Government efficiency is going to fix that." — Elon Musk: Trump rally rhetoric used to show Musk’s public alignment with Trump and his policy-style messaging "I think that's a whole new ballgame." — Stephanie Flanders: Reaction to Musk’s visible support for Trump and possible future role in government "I think it's a return to the tradition." — Charles Elson: His view that CEOs’ current caution is a reversion to historical political restraint rather than a new fear-driven development

Implications: The episode suggests that corporate political neutrality may be reasserting itself for most CEOs, but billionaire owners like Musk are becoming more openly political. That raises governance, reputational, and regulatory risks for major firms and could reshape how business interacts with elections.