This crop of billionaires was created from a time when capital was ascendant and state power was on the decline. I think as a result they’ve come to believe that the state is mostly there for their benefit especially during Republican administrations.
Not that both the Republicans and Democrats are very pro large business. Remember Harris raised at least _twice_ as much money from billionaires than Trump.
They're just pro different big businesses, largely based on their demographics.
Personally I'm still annoyed that Obama's administration had the DOE take over servicing federal student loans to "protect students" only for them to somehow be sold to a private company based in Chicago from what I can tell.
Billionaire spending heavily favored Republicans. Over two-thirds (70%) of billionaire-family contributions went in support of GOP candidates and conservative causes. Less than a quarter (23%) backed Democratic hopefuls and progressive causes. (The remainder went to committees without a clear partisan or ideological identity.
I hadn't looked for a while, but Harris was out raising and out spending Trump substantially when I'd last read up on it. Much of that seemed to come primarily from big donors.
Sure the more of the top richest people may have donated more to Trump or Republicans, but Harris raised much more overall.
Seems like they both raised about the same from their top 20 largest donors:
> The Harris campaign received significantly more funding than Trump's, outspending the Republican advertising machine by more than 70 percent in the final stretch of the election.
> According to data from Open Secrets, Harris received almost $400 million from her 20 largest backers. Trump received over half a billion dollars from his top 20, which included over $100 million from SpaceX, Elon Musk's rocket company.
My take of that is that Trump raised a bit more from concentrated donations from the richest billionaires, but Harris overall raised more from larger numbers of billionaires and millionaires.
