How did political campaigns get so expensive?

The escalating influence of money in U.S. elections reveals a system where financial dominance does not always guarantee victory but fundamentally warps the political landscape. While Republicans currently hold a significant spending advantage and figures like Elon Musk contribute hundreds of millions, historical precedents—such as Hillary Clinton outraising Donald Trump in 2016—demonstrate that massive funding cannot strictly buy outcomes. Political science professor Adam Bonica and former FEC chairman Trevor Potter trace this "arms race" to Supreme Court decisions like *Buckley v. Valeo* and *Citizens United*, which equated money with speech and enabled secret "dark money" contributions. This financial barrier shifts congressional demographics toward millionaires and lawyers, effectively narrowing the field of viable candidates before voters even reach the polls. Consequently, while money remains essential for basic voter communication, its pervasive role risks a "death spiral" of government corruption and weakened democratic integrity.