Good question. (Though kind of absurd, really.)

Historically, billionaires contribute to both parties massively, especially at the national level. This is, arguably, why no positive change happens at the federal level no matter who we elect. I think the best evidence of this is the fact that across multiple Democratic and Republican governments, the minimum wage has remained stuck at $7 an hour, even in the face of massive poverty and inflation. (And that shitty wage is probably going to turn 20 years old a couple of years.) In that time war funding always passes, even if the war itself is illegal and unauthorized. Neither party gives a shit because they don't have to. They're getting fat off insider trading, lobbyist gifts, and political contributions from billionaire PAC's, and as long as they play ball, the money keeps flowing.

In the last two cycles we've seen big billionaire spending at the state level, also for both parties. You saw it in this last election with billionaires spending big in California and Texas. This is because whole states' governance can be captured for a fraction of a billionaire's wealth, and that's a great investment for billionaires. If you can buy a Greg Abbott and a few Texas legislators, your data centers get fast-tracked and regulations get cut. If you can buy a few people in California, it's harder to pass a billionaire wealth tax. And you'll recall even Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, fought hard against the billionaire wealth tax, because he was paid to by his billionaire golf buddies.

Elon is an outlier and shouldn't represent the whole of your opinion.