The Political Patronage of Corporate Techno-Feudalism: How Big Tech Captures American Politics
Modern Political Ideology Part 5
The Political Patronage of Corporate Techno-Feudalism: How Big Tech Captures American Politics
In the previous essay, we examined how corporate techno-feudalism is restructuring American labor markets and concentrating wealth in the hands of a few mega-corporations. We traced the seismic shifts brought about by AI-driven automation, highlighting how white-collar professionals are now on the front lines of job displacement. As the economy undergoes this radical transformation, we must also turn our attention to the political machinery that supports it.
Corporate techno-feudalism is not just an economic phenomenon—it is inherently political. To secure and expand their power, Big Tech companies have infiltrated the political arena, using their vast resources to influence legislation, shape public discourse, and co-opt both major political parties. This essay will explore the political patronage of corporate techno-feudalism, focusing on how Silicon Valley and Big Tech have captured American politics to secure their dominance.
I. The Rise of Big Tech Political Patronage
The 21st century has witnessed an unprecedented rise of corporate influence in American politics. What was once the domain of traditional industries—like energy, finance, and manufacturing—has now been overtaken by Silicon Valley giants. Companies like Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Meta, Apple, and Microsoft not only dominate the digital economy but also wield immense political influence.
The Money Machine
Between 2018 and 2024, the combined political spending of the top five Big Tech firms exceeded $500 million in direct campaign contributions and lobbying efforts. According to OpenSecrets, Big Tech became a consistently large player in the corporate lobbying sector as of 2022.
Google and its employees have given over $65 million to candidates and PACs over the last 3 election cycles.
Amazon increased its lobbying efforts from $27 million in the 2018 cycle to nearly $40 million in both the 2022 and 2024 cycles.
Meta (formerly Facebook) strategically aligned with data privacy legislation that favored its own surveillance infrastructure.
This strategic investment ensures that no matter which party holds power, Big Tech’s legislative agenda is safeguarded.
II. How Corporate Patronage Warps Policy
The relationship between Big Tech and politics is not merely transactional—it’s systemic. These companies have embedded themselves in the political fabric, shaping policy agendas and public discourse to align with their corporate interests.
The Revolving Door
One of the most blatant examples of corporate patronage is the revolving door between Big Tech and government. Former tech executives are frequently appointed to key advisory roles, while former policymakers are offered lucrative positions within tech companies.
Jay Carney, former White House Press Secretary, became Amazon’s Senior Vice President of Global Corporate Affairs, leading the company’s government relations strategy. Carney held this position until 2022, after which he became the Global Head of Policy and Communications at Airbnb.
David Plouffe, a senior advisor to President Obama, was recruited by Uber to shape its lobbying and regulatory strategy. In this role, he was instrumental in shaping Uber's strategies, leveraging his political experience to navigate the complex regulatory environments in various markets.
This revolving door mechanism ensures that corporate interests are consistently embedded within policy-making processes.
Data-Driven Political Messaging
With access to vast troves of personal data, companies like Meta and Google have perfected the art of political micro-targeting. By offering their data analytics services to political campaigns, they:
Shape voter perceptions through algorithmically driven content.
Amplify certain narratives while suppressing others, often based on corporate-friendly policies.
Facilitate AI-powered advertising campaigns that obscure corporate patronage under the guise of grassroots support.
This convergence of data power and political strategy has tilted the balance of public discourse. Politicians become clients of Big Tech platforms, reliant on their tools to shape public opinion and win elections.
III. How Both Parties Are Compromised
Corporate techno-feudalism has deep roots in both major political parties, albeit in different ways.
The Democratic Alignment with Big Tech
The Democratic Party, traditionally seen as the champion of labor and social justice, has increasingly aligned itself with Silicon Valley. This partnership grew during the Obama administration, which celebrated innovation and digital connectivity.
Joe Biden’s 2020 campaign received major backing from Silicon Valley elites, with tech billionaires contributing tens of millions to Super PACs.
Policy priorities like Net Neutrality and Big Tech antitrust reform were often softened or stalled to avoid alienating key donors.
While some progressive Democrats criticize Big Tech monopolies, the party’s mainstream leadership remains hesitant to tackle the very corporations that fund their campaigns.
The GOP’s Faustian Bargain
While traditionally suspicious of corporate power, the GOP has made a Faustian bargain with Big Tech, especially when it comes to economic deregulation and fiscal policy.
Tax cuts and deregulation under Trump favored Big Tech expansion, despite his public criticisms of social media censorship.
Corporate techno-feudalism aligns with the libertarian ethos within the GOP, where market power is seen as a result of merit rather than manipulation.
The result is that both parties perpetuate the corporate techno-feudal model, differing only in rhetoric, not substance.
IV. The Disappearing Regulatory State
One of the hallmarks of techno-feudalism is the weakening of traditional regulation. As Big Tech’s political patronage grows, regulatory agencies are either co-opted or defunded.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have repeatedly failed to break up tech monopolies, even when their market dominance was proven. However, in April 2025, a U.S. District Court ruled that Google unlawfully maintained monopolies in two key online advertising technology markets: publisher ad servers and ad exchanges. This decision paves the way for potential structural changes, including the forced sale of key ad tech assets like Google Ad Manager.
The 2019 antitrust hearings involving major tech companies like Google and Facebook concluded without immediate legislative action. While the hearings raised awareness and led to subsequent investigations, they did not result in significant policy changes at the time.
Instead of enforcing stronger data protection laws, Congress passed privacy measures that merely codified Big Tech’s self-regulatory practices. Congress has introduced privacy legislation, such as the American Privacy Rights Act (APRA), aiming to establish federal standards for data protection. However, revisions to the bill have weakened certain provisions, leading to criticisms that it aligns too closely with industry self-regulatory practices.
As long as Big Tech controls digital infrastructure, it will continue to influence regulations to its benefit.
V. The Political Cost of Tech Patronage
The influence of corporate techno-feudalism is creating widespread public disillusionment. Independent voters, in particular, feel betrayed as both major parties continue to protect corporate interests over public welfare. Silicon Valley’s hold over key issues—from online speech and media infrastructure to data privacy and labor automation—has contributed to a profound sense that democracy is increasingly performative rather than participatory.
This erosion of trust has significant implications for American democracy. Voter turnout can become weaker as people feel their choices are meaningless against corporate power. The rise of populist rhetoric increases as politicians campaign against Big Tech but deliver little in policy change. Fragmented movements on the left and right spin their wheels as various grassroots efforts struggle to gain traction without corporate backing or access to the algorithmic channels that shape public attention.
Beyond economics and governance, the social and psychological toll of technology is now a frequent subject in political discussion. The impact of digital platforms on youth mental health has emerged as a bipartisan concern. Numerous studies have linked excessive smartphone and social media use to rising rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness among teenagers. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported in 2021 that nearly 60% of teenage girls experienced persistent sadness in the past year, a number that remains elevated alongside the growth of algorithmically-driven engagement platforms.
Senator Josh Hawley and Senator Elizabeth Warren—two figures rarely aligned—have both raised alarms about the corrosive influence of social media on children and adolescents. Legislative proposals have ranged from stricter age limits to new regulations on data collection, addictive design, and time-based usage controls. However, meaningful reforms have stalled amid heavy lobbying from tech giants and the revolving door between federal regulators and private industry.
There are also deeper cultural questions emerging about what it means to live in a society increasingly shaped by attention-based metrics. Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at NYU, has extensively examined the impact of social media on adolescent mental health. In his 2021 afterword to The Coddling of the American Mind, co-authored with Greg Lukianoff, Haidt likened platforms like Instagram to a “Skinner box,” referencing B.F. Skinner's operant conditioning chamber. He noted that teens, particularly girls, receive intermittent rewards—likes, shares, comments—for posting content, reinforcing behavior in a manner similar to how Skinner's rats learned to press levers for food. The dopamine economy thrives on manufactured outrage, clickbait, and comparison-driven insecurity. The collective cost—both psychological and civic—is visible in declining social trust, shortened attention spans, and a weakened public square.
Meanwhile, platforms that promise free speech have morphed into surveillance engines and privatized censors, selectively moderating content in ways that are opaque and erratic. This fuels partisan conspiracy theories and undermines efforts to establish shared truth in democratic discourse. Politicians leverage these platforms to amplify slogans rather than to deliberate ideas, shaping a politics that is more performative than practical.
Ultimately, the political cost of tech patronage is not just a question of failed policy—it is a spiritual and civic crisis. A government that cannot protect its people from exploitative digital systems, cannot educate its children without outsourcing the classroom to corporations, and cannot uphold its own laws against monopolistic abuse, risks losing legitimacy. A new political vision must arise that is capable of safeguarding human dignity in an age of artificial persuasion, surveillance commerce, and algorithmic manipulation.
VI. The New Techno-Feudal Lords: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos
As corporate techno-feudalism entrenches itself deeper into the fabric of American politics, two figures stand out as archetypal techno-feudal lords: Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. These billionaires are not just titans of industry; they are political actors with the power to shape public discourse and policy. Their influence extends beyond their companies and personal brands—they have redefined the intersection between corporate ambition, media control, and public policy, all while leveraging government contracts to fund their space race dreams.
Media Moguls and Political Influencers
Both Musk and Bezos have become powerful gatekeepers of information and public speech. In the world of corporate techno-feudalism, control over media and public dialogue is not merely incidental—it is a core element of maintaining influence and managing public perception.
Elon Musk: The Social Media Baron
In October 2022, Musk acquired Twitter for $44 billion, instantly transforming from a high-profile entrepreneur to a de facto media mogul. This move positioned him not just as a tech innovator but as a central figure in controlling public discourse. Musk's Twitter takeover was justified as a crusade for “free speech”, but his subsequent actions have revealed a more calculated approach.
He used the platform to disseminate his own political views, often amplifying populist and contrarian perspectives. By controlling Twitter, Musk has gained direct access to millions of users, bypassing traditional media and establishing his own propaganda pipeline.
Musk’s growing political influence is a hallmark of techno-feudalism, where digital landlords not only own platforms but also shape the ideological landscape. As a result, independent political voices often find themselves at the mercy of Musk’s whims, particularly when his economic interests—like his ties to the Chinese government through Tesla’s Shanghai factory—align with or contradict public sentiment.
Jeff Bezos: The Media Capitalist
In contrast to Musk’s bombastic approach, Bezos’ strategy is subtler but no less powerful. In 2013, Bezos purchased The Washington Post for $250 million. Unlike Musk’s Twitter, Bezos did not directly infuse the publication with his own opinions. Instead, he has used it as a cultural and political asset.
The Post’s editorial stance often aligns with corporate-friendly liberalism, favoring globalization, free trade, and market liberalization. Also, Bezos’ ownership serves as a shield against political attacks on Amazon, as the newspaper remains cautious in its critique of Amazon’s labor practices and market dominance. Lastly, as a trusted mainstream outlet, The Washington Post legitimizes the neoliberal ethos that has enriched Bezos, advocating for economic policies that indirectly bolster Amazon’s global supply chains.
The Space Race: Public Contracts for Private Power
Beyond media control, both Musk and Bezos are deeply invested in the modern space race, which embodies a new frontier of corporate techno-feudalism. Their companies, SpaceX and Blue Origin, are not merely private endeavors; they are strategic assets fueled by public funding.
Government Dependency
Despite the mythos of self-made success, both Musk and Bezos rely heavily on government contracts to fund their space ambitions.
SpaceX has secured billions in contracts from NASA and the Department of Defense, making it the dominant player in U.S. space logistics.
Blue Origin, while less successful in securing major contracts, still benefits from NASA’s Artemis program and U.S. Space Force funding.
Both companies also benefit from indirect subsidies, such as tax breaks and favorable land lease agreements.
The techno-feudal paradox here is stark: while positioning themselves as pioneers of privatized space exploration, both Musk and Bezos depend on public money to finance their interstellar dreams. This model of privatizing rewards while socializing risks exemplifies the techno-feudal dynamic, where public investment underwrites private power.
Private Ambition, Public Consequences
As both entrepreneurs push for colonization of Mars (Musk) and space tourism (Bezos), they frame their endeavors as humanitarian and visionary. Yet, the reality is that these ventures are part of establishing monopolistic control over future resource extraction and orbital logistics.
Musk envisions a Martian colony governed under his own rules—an extraterritorial techno-feudal domain.
Bezos aims to build space habitats, positioning Blue Origin as the premier infrastructure provider for an orbital economy.
Their vision for humanity’s future is inherently corporate and elitist, where access to the stars becomes another commodity controlled by the tech elite.
The Political Cost: Patronage and Immunity
The patronage model becomes clear when considering how politicians on both sides of the aisle court Musk and Bezos.
Tax Breaks and Labor Policy
State governments compete to host their factories and spaceports, offering tax incentives that erode local revenues.
Labor policies are crafted to favor non-unionized workforces, as seen in Tesla’s and Amazon’s resistance to unionization efforts.
Political Immunity
When Bezos faced scrutiny over Amazon’s warehouse conditions, and Musk was investigated for worker safety violations, both men used their media influence and political connections to dampen criticism.
This demonstrates how techno-feudal lords secure legal and social immunity, shielding their enterprises from the consequences that other businesses would face.
The Symbolism of Modern Feudalism
In many ways, Musk and Bezos represent the new digital aristocracy:
They control vast technological fiefdoms and wield political influence through media ownership and public contracts.
Their interventions in public discourse shape how voters perceive technology, economics, and political power.
As they expand into space, they are not merely building rockets—they are staking claims on the future of human civilization.
This is the essence of corporate techno-feudalism: private empires funded by public money, manipulating both the economic and ideological apparatus to entrench their control.
VII. Conclusion: Breaking the Corporate Techno-Feudal Grip
To challenge the techno-feudal dominance of figures like Musk and Bezos, we must critically assess the interplay between corporate ambition and public governance. Independent voters, in particular, must recognize that media ownership and space monopolies are not just business ventures but strategic power plays.
Breaking the cycle will require public accountability for government contracts, stricter antitrust enforcement, and a clear delineation between private ambition and public good. Otherwise, the techno-feudal lords of Silicon Valley will continue to shape not just the digital economy but the political destiny of the United States.
If voters want to reclaim democracy from corporate techno-feudalism, they must demand comprehensive reform:
Stronger antitrust action to break up tech monopolies.
Campaign finance reform to curb corporate donations.
Publicly funded political platforms that remove reliance on Big Tech’s data ecosystems.
Breaking the cycle of corporate political patronage is not just a policy challenge—it’s a battle for the future of democracy itself. As long as tech monopolies dictate the political agenda, genuine democratic governance will remain out of reach.
The next essay will explore how to innovate politics to sidestep corporate techno-feudalism—focusing on grassroots movements, independent reform agendas, and a new vision for digital democracy.
Question to readers: where do you stand on corporate political patronage?
Notes:
The Common Sense Papers are an offering by Common Sense 250, which proposes a method to realign the two-party system in the United States with the creation of a new political superstructure that circumvents the current dysfunctional duopoly. The goal is to heal political divisions and reboot the American political system for an effective federal government.
Notes on Corporate Techno-Feudalism and Neoliberalism:
Ah, we were so naïve in our youth. We didn't realize dopamine would become an economic power.
Joe, thanks so much for writing this. There’s a clarity and composure in your work that cuts through the noise, and this piece is no exception.
Your section on how both parties have been structurally compromised by Big Tech patronage really stood out. The detail on the revolving door between Silicon Valley and government was especially sharp, Jay Carney and David Plouffe as case studies really illustrate how power preserves itself across supposedly opposing camps. This is an interesting takeaway writing from London, as here traditional "professional services firms" still dominate the privileges bestowed to those who maneuver between the private and public sector.
Your focus on macro-political patronage overlaps in really interesting ways with a piece I recently wrote, which zooms in on how this same techno-feudalism seeps into white-collar workplaces: not just through surveillance, but through algorithmic management, performative labour, and the quiet erasure of autonomy. Where your essay shows the boardroom strategy, mine explores what that feels like on the ground floor, how the modern office becomes a kind of smiley digital factory.
Together, I think both essays sketch a fuller picture, one from the view of power and political systems, and the other from inside the performance of “professionalism” under techno-feudal norms.
Would appreciate your thoughts on how we push the conversation beyond diagnosis. What forms of resistance (personal, structural, digital) feel both urgent and realistic to you?
If you're interested, here is the piece I wrote: https://noisyghost.substack.com/p/techno-feudalism-at-work-the-factory