Kathmandu— While recent progressive victories offer a glimmer of hope, a series of legal developments are simultaneously reinforcing the power of established interests in both electoral politics and the data economy. These shifts, ranging from partisan gerrymandering enabled by the Supreme Court to corporate governance structures that prioritize founder control, create a cycle where insiders can shape the rules of competition to their advantage and insulate themselves from challenges. This accumulation of power is occurring across seemingly disparate legal arenas, with significant implications for democratic processes and economic equity.

Gerrymandering Strengthens Incumbent Control

The Supreme Court’s weakening of voting rights protections has opened the door to increased partisan gerrymandering. In response to Republican mapmaking in other states, California Governor Gavin Newsom recently pushed through a new congressional map drawn by a Democratic redistricting expert and vetted by the state's Democratic delegation. While presented as a countermeasure, this illustrates how gerrymandering inevitably benefits incumbents, allowing them to protect their seats and hinder challengers even within their own party. This practice extends beyond general elections, impacting primary contests as well.

Parties Gain Leverage in Primaries

Beyond gerrymandering, the Democratic Party has gained new tools for influencing primary elections thanks to a recent Supreme Court decision. The court struck down federal prohibitions on coordinated spending by parties for candidates, effectively removing limits on dark money flowing into campaigns. While potentially benefiting Republicans in the short term, this change ultimately strengthens both major parties’ ability to police ideological purity and support preferred candidates at the primary stage. This increased leverage could prove crucial as the party seeks to maintain control and address internal divisions.

Dual-Class Shares Entrench Corporate Control

A similar trend is unfolding in the corporate world, where venture capitalists have perfected legal mechanisms to circumvent shareholder primacy. The dual-class share structure—exemplified by companies like SpaceX—allows founders to retain disproportionate voting control even with a minority stake in equity. Elon Musk’s SpaceX sold Class A shares with one vote per share to the public but maintains super-voting Class B shares, granting him roughly 80 percent of the voting rights despite owning only 40 percent of the company's equity. OpenAI and Anthropic are employing similar strategies, ensuring that founders maintain near-total control as they enter public markets.

Linking Economic and Political Power

These legal maneuvers aren’t isolated incidents; they represent a functional link between campaign finance law and corporate governance. The concentrated wealth created by dual-class shares can serve as collateral for political spending, enabling founders to fund their preferred projects through strategies like “buy, borrow, die.” This allows them to maintain control of both their companies and exert influence over the political landscape, potentially establishing dynastic control that extends beyond traditional inheritance patterns. Even legal scholars often fail to recognize these connections, missing the broader implications for democratic processes.

A Vicious Cycle of Concentrated Power

The combined effect of these developments is a vicious cycle where concentrations of power feed each other. Legal changes facilitate both economic and political control, creating barriers to entry for challengers and reinforcing the dominance of established interests. Understanding this interplay—the subtle ways in which law shapes the rules of competition—is crucial for assessing the true stakes of contemporary political projects.

These legal architectures are increasingly intertwined, solidifying a system where power is concentrated among a small group of individuals and institutions. Addressing this requires a comprehensive understanding of how seemingly disparate legal developments contribute to this trend.

(With inputs from Jacobin)

Originally published on abcnews.com.np.