Money matters. It opens opportunities, provides for experiences, and creates connections that — even if possible without it — invariably become much easier with it. Despite The Beatles proclamation that “money can’t buy me love,” nearly every political campaign and candidate in American politics knows the great impact of a full war chest.

The reality of modern elections lies in the necessity of having as much money as possible. It cannot guarantee victory, of course, but it feeds the lifelines that make campaigns successful. Few would argue that money in politics is inherently evil but the increasing cost for a winning candidate should concern us all.

Data collected by Open Secrets, a nonpartisan nonprofit focused on campaign finance, estimated that in 2024, the total cost of Congressional races reached $9.5 billion. That is not a typo. That does not include the presidential election (which, in comparison, topped a paltry $5.3 billion for a singular contest). That is the total dollar amount fundraised simply for the Congressional elections alone. 

Each cycle seems to set new records for the amount of money raised and spent by campaigns, further supporting the belief that political access is far from democratic and instead limited to those who can afford it. The issue of voter representation underwent serious changes through the court this spring, with much of the attention focused on the landmark decision in Louisiana v. Callais (2026). That case effectively voided Section II of the now-anemic Voting Rights Act of 1965, already weakened substantially over a decade earlier in the Shelby County v. Holder (2013). 

Equally as important in election policy was the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn previous restrictions on donations from political parties in the National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission this June. The changes from the court struck down limits imposed on political parties in campaign contributions in what Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh referred to as “severe infringement on First Amendment-protected speech. Coupled with the Citizens United decision from 2010, the landscape of campaign finance in American elections went from somewhat regulated with caution to infinite in abundance. 

Braun grew reelection cash while joining others in bankrolling redistricting revenge

Campaigns could never deny their interest in more money but with major barriers eliminated, the need to compete with a proliferation of funding supersedes other arguably more important aspects of campaigning. Time is, unlike money, a finite resource. Time spent leveraging current donors or seeking new funding sources is time that cannot be used cultivating relationships with constituents or conversing with colleagues on policy solutions. Sure, a good campaign will still pursue each of these tasks.  With fewer fundraising obstacles and limitations, however, the projected value of fundraising takes prioritization over the other elements of campaigning. Organizing outreach, mobilizing voters, and building community are fundamental to a healthy relationship between officeholders and their public but lost in the arms race of mutually assured distruction. 

Campaigning offers the opportunity to engage in the community as the candidate courts votes, providing insight into the approach and values of the candidate before they are ultimately selected by the people. Greater emphasis on fundraising leads to less availability for prospective constituents, an inverted priority that hurts the candidates and the voters, who are reduced to consumers pelted with advertising and public relations campaigns that reduce their vote to the capitalist equivalent of a purchase. As the Notorious B.I.G. lamented, “mo’ money” irrevocably leads to “mo’ problems:” campaigns are compelled to fundraise, candidates are coerced into more financial relationships, and constituents are constrained in their access and understanding of the candidate.

In the end, we all lose. We lose a critical component of democratic elections that presumes some level of “fairness” amongst candidates competing for public office and the voters deciding whom they shall support. And this is not even touching the issue of the origins of contributions, in which the increasing presence of so-called “dark money” is accompanied by another host of issues.

Money, as Pink Floyd suggests, might be “the root of all evil today” yet it doesn’t have to be. Without the establishment of reasonable boundaries and parameters, fundraising will continue to balloon into excessive new sums, to the detriment of candidates, voters, and democratic elections alike. Campaigns should focus on candidates and voters, not funds in the ultimate quest for electoral victory.