Did the trumpian counterpublic dissent against the dominant model of campaign finance?

Abstract

Trumpism poses a difficult challenge for counterpublic scholarship: should forms of rightnationalism dissenting against dominant publicity be analysed using the same concepts as other types of dissent? This article argues that Trumpism demonstrated counterpublic dissent against dominant campaign finance publicity by criticising the influence of wealthy donors in both political parties. Trumpism also offered an alternative to the dominant logic of necessary ethical compromise shaping publicity about campaign finance in the wake of the 2010 Citizens United US Supreme Court decision. However, Trumpism failed to foster greater democracy because of the way it posed Trump himself as the only necessary solution to the problems of plutocracy. Counterpublic theory should revisit the way it balances its normative and empirical dimensions to account for the rise of radical-right nationalisms and their publicity outlets.