Trump, for his part, has given no rational assurances that he will curb his business empire should he be elected. To date, the most he has said is that he would place his interests into a blind trust, with his children in charge—a contradiction in terms that he, apparently, doesn’t understand. The only ways Clinton and Trump could truly deflect conflict-of-interest scandals would be for the former to close down the Clinton Foundation or completely sever its management from the family, and for Trump to hold one giant initial public offering (IPO) for his holdings. After that, he would have to deposit the proceeds into a truly blind trust that invested in mutual funds (whose exact asset allocations would constantly shift) over which he and his children exercised no direction. Neither candidate seems at all disposed to take such steps. But even if they did—and we were to allow ourselves to indulge in a hypothetical—neither candidate would pose a challenge to corporate dominance. According to the most recent study compiled by the European-based Allianz Group, which studies global wealth distribution, the United States is the world’s richest yet most unequal nation. Research conducted by economists Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman, as summarized by The Guardian, has found that the top 0.1 percent of American families now own roughly the same share of wealth as the bottom 90 percent. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand that great concentrations of wealth beget great political influence. As The Intercept’s national security reporter Mattathias Schwartz observed in a lengthy feature earlier this month, a total of $2 billion will be spent on the 2016 presidential race. Much of that funding has and will continue to come from the 106 richest Americans—the so-called Club of 106, composed of Americans with fortunes of $5 billion or more—either in the form of direct campaign contributions or the financing of super PACs. Whether they support the neoliberal Clinton or are still hoping for a Trump pivot to less incendiary rhetoric, members of the club expect a form of governance that will protect the infrastructure, privileges and hierarchies of late capitalism. Schwartz writes that Trump, “[w]ith a supposed net worth of $4.5 billion,” is “brushing up against the velvet rope” of the club and is practically a member. The Clintons, with a fortune just north of $110 million, may be well outside the lines, but they are still miles closer than the rest of us. And, as Schwartz elaborates, they’ve used their connections with the über rich to approximate a similar lifestyle, flying in the private jets of wealthy friends “during the political offseason,” and buying such trinkets as a $10 million Manhattan apartment for Chelsea and her husband. Whatever other differences there may be between Clinton and Trump—and whether or not either might become embroiled in an overt “quid pro quo” indignity in the Oval Office—they will function as emissaries of the oligarchy. In the end, that is the single most critical conflict of interest the media, and everyone else, should be shouting about. In these critical times, your support is crucial...

As we navigate an uncertain 2025, with a new administration questioning press freedoms, the risks are clear: our ability to report freely is under threat.

Your tax-deductible donation enables us to dig deeper, delivering fearless investigative reporting and analysis that exposes the reality behind the headlines — without compromise.

"Truthdig’s a lifeline for anyone who values democracy especially during these challenging times.”
— Fernando Villamare, Los Angeles, CA

Now is the time to take action. Stand with our courageous journalists. Donate today to protect a free press, uphold democracy and uncover the stories that need to be told.

SUPPORT TRUTHDIG