Photo: Win McNamee/Getty Images
Last week, former Clinton Labor Secretary turned to liberal commentator Robert Reich declared, “We’ve got to defund Musk.”
Before yesterday’s election results, such bloviating was easy to shrug off as far-left lunacy. Now that the Democrats have retaken the House and the Senate, however, Reich’s call for them to start “laying the groundwork for nationalizing Starlink and SpaceX” must be taken seriously.
Even many conservatives might be tempted to largely ignore a potential lawfare crusade against Musk. After all, he is the wealthiest person in the world. But Americans should understand that the crusade to “get Musk,” just like the crusade to “get Trump,” is about more than just one man – it’s an assertion of power that, if successful, can then be weaponized against anyone.
According to the Washington Sun, the Democrats are already working on a bill that would bar certain corporate leaders and major contributors from specific political spending while holding government contracts, clear retribution for Musk’s support of Republicans in recent cycles. As the Sun reports, “Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland and California Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, is set to pass a bill closing what they’re calling the ‘Elon Musk loophole.’”
Evidently, these characters don’t realize that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled such legislation unconstitutional.
In 2010, the Court ruled in Citizens United v. FEC that limits on independent spending from corporations and other outside groups equate to limiting their speech and thus violate the First Amendment. Most of Musk’s political contributions are made via his political action committee, America PAC. It is an “outside group” registered with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), as is the Soros-funded Democracy PAC.
Even if “defunding Musk” were constitutional, it won’t happen as long as Trump is president, which Reich admits in the Guardian:
“The project of defunding Musk will probably have to wait until after 20 January 2029, when, let’s pray, we have a sane administration in Washington that will end all government contracts with him (his support for rightwing extremists around the world makes him a security risk), bust up his monopolies (a reinvigorated Federal Trade Commission and Federal Communications Commission will see to it), and impose a significant wealth tax on him.”
Reich is by no means the only Democrat infected with the nationalization bug. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s “Accountable Capitalism Act” (most recently introduced as S. 5493 in December 2024) is a stealth nationalization bill. As the Hoover Institution’s Richard A. Epstein writes, “Make no mistake about it, her proposal calls for the outright confiscation of wealth through the nationalization of corporate boards that would be forever beholden to political figures. Surreptitious socialism turns out to be her way of saving capitalism.”
As Michael Shellenberger pointed out at EnergyNow.com during the Autopen administration, “Democrats, including a leading U.S. Senate candidate, a former Department of Energy official, and an influential energy expert, are urging the U.S. government to socialize America’s oil and gas firms.”
This illustrates the stupidity of voting for Democrats because of gas prices. This is what awaits us if a Democrat is elected president in 2028. He will be in the thrall of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which promotes nationalization.
The DSA’s public manifesto literally says they plan to do the following: “Establish public ownership of the largest corporations and essential industries to ensure democratic control and accountability to the people.” This is precisely what Robert Reich insists must be done to Starlink, SpaceX, and Elon Musk himself. This would be a brazen violation of the Fifth Amendment. Turning again to Richard A. Epstein, plus his fellow legal scholar Eduardo M. Peñalver, they describe the amendment’s Takings Clause and its importance:
“The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: ‘Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.’ In understanding the provision, we both agree that it is helpful to keep in mind the reasons behind it. We agree that the Clause is intended to uphold the principle that the government should not single out isolated individuals to bear excessive burdens, even in support of an important public good.”
The rubber hits the road with the words “without just compensation.” The compensation requirement applies to all forms of private property. Epstein and Peñalve expand on this as follows: “At a minimum this means that the Clause applies to government confiscation of personal property, including interests as diverse as animals and corporate stock.”
You will also note that the Takings Clause cannot be violated “even in support of an important public good.” It certainly can’t be violated to save us from fake threats like the “climate crisis.”
Reich’s proposal is not merely unconstitutional – it also has zero chance to accomplish what he believes it would.
Nationalization isn’t a new idea. An obvious example of a country that has tried it is Venezuela. Not long ago, Venezuela was one of the wealthiest and most prosperous nations in Latin America and the world. Hugo Chávez took power in 1999, formed the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, and nationalized the economy. His corrupt successor, Nicolás Maduro, continued his policies until the economy collapsed. Per capita income went from one of the highest in Latin America to the very lowest.
This shouldn’t be a surprise. Nationalized companies backed by a corrupt ruler obviously aren’t vulnerable to competition. Consequently, they hoard resources that should be reinvested and they avoid the risks associated with innovation. Government-run companies always prioritize bloated payrolls over customer satisfaction. And, inevitably, such organizations will continue to descend further and further into corrupt practices such as keeping the pockets of the politically powerful full of bribes. As the Cato Institute’s Marcos Falcone and Daniel Raisbeck write:
“Relative to other countries, perceived corruption in Venezuela has deteriorated almost without interruption since Hugo Chávez came to power. Venezuela initially ranked among the 20 percent to 25 percent most corrupt countries in the world, but by 2006 researcher Gustavo Coronel could extensively document how corruption had ‘exploded to unprecedented levels.’ The situation has only worsened since, placing Venezuela among the 1 percent of countries with the worst corruption in the world.”
This is what the Democrats, in the grip of charlatans like Robert Reich and infected by the DSA, will do to the United States if we let them. It is a blindingly obvious “tell” that they plan to target Elon Musk, who is unquestionably the most consequential entrepreneur of our era—comparable to Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison. His companies made the first commercially viable electric car, produced the first reusable space vehicles, built a satellite-based internet for the masses, enabled free speech to flourish, ad infinitum.
Yet the Democrats hate him because he committed the cardinal sin of supporting President Trump and mocking left-wing orthodoxy.
Indeed, according to a survey conducted by Rasmussen last spring, fully 71 percent of Democrats want to see Musk in prison. Whatever is wrong with these people, it’s obvious that they have no business holding power. Politicians like Elizabeth Warren and pundits like Robert Reich who have never built anything, who have never run a business or risked a dime of their own money to create something new, believe that they know better than visionary business leaders how companies ought to be run.
That is a level of suicidal hubris that would destroy America’s longstanding status as the cradle of innovation and prosperity.
1 Comment