*May 28, 2026 – 8.00pm*

*Since the Gilded Age of Rockefeller, Carnegie and Vanderbilt, billionaires of all political stripes have understood how to leverage their vast fortunes to shape public discourse.*

*Modern-day American “robber barons” such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, Mark Zuckerberg and Jeff Bezos all control the largest single chunk of Wall Street’s market value and wield an outsized impact on America’s politics, civic society and economy.*

*The well-heeled are entitled to fund and champion causes they care about. Billionaire philanthropy has also provided private capital to crucial areas like education, scientific research and healthcare that a politically and fiscally constrained government can’t match.*

*They can also contribute alternative perspectives that are grounded in the practical realities of building a business that counter the typical intellectual theories, media stereotypes or government policies that might dominate debate.*

*The dilemma in the United States, however, is that the democratic playing field is being unbalanced by the “wealthification” of politics. Looser political campaign finance laws have, for instance, allowed deep-pocked individuals from the left and the right to pour unlimited money into elections without needing to disclose themselves.*

*While there’s a strong case for preserving the right to anonymity, it has perversely encouraged certain people to exert an outsized influence on elections, covertly lobby for specific causes and buy private access to politicians behind closed doors. The overt wielding of political power and privilege risks eroding public confidence in democratic decision-making, skews policies towards narrow interests and cultivates a plutocracy.*

*Take for instance the coterie of tech oligarchs who have all sided with US President Donald Trump to advance their business interests, which included winding back Biden-era artificial intelligence regulation. Musk, notably, donated at least $US288 million to Trump and allied Republicans in the 2024 presidential election.*

*Fortunately, that phenomenon hasn’t taken root in Australia. Healthy checks and balances on our political ecosystem remain largely intact, and while billionaires have certainly used their wealth to push their agendas, it’s nowhere near the extent as the US. And it is usually more transparent.*

*Sitting atop a $39 billion iron ore fortune and the AFR Rich List for seven consecutive years, Gina Rinehart is a prime example of a local billionaire who is building a network of influence and patronage.*

*Beyond her long-time financial backing of the Coalition, Rinehart has increasingly extended her support to the broader conservative movement.*

*She gifted Pauline Hanson a $1 million private jet to aid One Nation’s campaign efforts, poured almost $900,000 into the political campaign outfit Advance last financial year and has expanded her network globally, including by courting Trump and, notably, attending his Great Gatsby-themed Halloween party at Mar-a-Lago last year.*

*Her activism has ranged from campaigning against state intervention in the resources sector and the Albanese government’s industrial relations reforms such as “same job, same pay” provisions to calling to improve private investment incentives.*

*This week, Rinehart bankrolled former Seven media executive Bruce McWilliam’s $25 million stake in Southern Cross Media (the company that owns Network Seven, Triple M and The West Australian).*

*It prompted Fairfax Chairman Roger Corbet to acknowledge that it would be “extremely difficult for Rinehart to have a significant shareholding in a media company without expressing her views on how that media organisation should report the news”.*

*It’s to be expected that the interests of powerful people who invest in a media company go beyond just the financial bottom line.*

*Expecting a major shareholder with Rinehart’s political convictions to remain entirely agnostic about the editorial direction of their investment is unrealistic.*

*The presence of proprietors, whether directly or indirectly, will influence the cultural and political posture of their outlets.*

*Some people get very exercised by billionaire moguls, whose politics they disagree with, setting the tone of content.*

*It is certainly the case that Stokes – and possibly Rinehart in the future – will colour The West Australian’s coverage and it won’t always serve the masthead’s audience well.*

*But the extreme arguments against the Rineharts of this world ignore the reality that the organisations are also guided by the desires of the audience.*

*Moreover, Australia is relatively well served by a wide array of private and publicly funded digital media organisations whose worldviews span the political spectrum.*

*In the digital age, consumers have never had (for better or worse) more diversified sources of information to tap into. (A possible exception to this is Perth and some regional areas where there is a greater concentration of ownership).*

*It’s true that wealth can buy you a megaphone. But ultimately, in a free society, ideas win when they resonate with the values, needs and experiences of ordinary people.*

*If a billionaire pushes a perspective that is out of touch with the majority, the marketplace of ideas will eventually filter it out.* ■

The AFR View: Billionaire barons have every right to use their money to influence us