With midterm elections only two weeks away, political advertisements are flooding the airwaves as Americans decide who will get their vote come Nov. 4. However, more and more of these advertisements are being aired by outside groups, namely political action committees, rather than the candidates themselves or their political party’s national committee. 

These wealthy PACs and the donors who fund them are also exerting a disproportionate influence on the candidates’ own advertisements. 

Previously, caps on campaign contributions limited the extent to which corporations, wealthy individuals and other politically active groups could influence elections. Now, government’s ability to regulate campaign spending for large donors and corporations has been compromised due to various pieces of legislation and Supreme Court decisions over the past decade and a half. 

As a result, the upcoming midterms will be the most expensive in our nation’s history and are projected to total $4 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Unfortunately, the ever-growing political clout of outside spenders coupled with the overall growth in campaign contributions has turned our most vital democratic exercise into a financial war fought almost exclusively by the wealthiest few.

Ironically, the problem precipitated with the passing of legislation which is commonly thought to be one of the most significant regulations of campaign finances in recent years. The 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act—commonly referred to “McCain-Feingold”—limited contributions to political parties from wealthy individuals and corporations. Proponents of the legislation believed it would reduce the influence of the wealthiest few on national party committees, and by extension, on the policies of the candidates for whom the parties advocate. 

Ideally, political parties would be forced to rely on smaller donors and would subsequently become more grassroots oriented. The proponents of the new law did not anticipate that the bill would instead divert funds from political parties into outside groups such as Super PACs.

The problems which resulted from the passage of McCain-Feingold were greatly intensi-fied by a series of Supreme Court decisions delivered recently, starting with Citizens United v. FEC in 2010. 

The decision stated that the government could not limit corporate spending on advocacy for or against candidates. 

Another decision in 2010 called Speechnow v. FEC created the current super PACs, which spend their own money to fund their own advertisements instead of contributing directly to campaigns like a normal PAC.

Then, in October of 2013, the court outlawed limits on individual spending in McCutcheon v. FEC. Old regulations ensured that individual donors could only donate to 18 federal elections per cycle. As a result of the court’s ruling in McCutcheon, individuals can donate to as many candidates as they want. 

Super PACs tend to focus on a small number of issues which are most concerning to them and their donors rather than the broad range of issues which are most concerning to the majority of the population. Advertisements run by Super PACs can help shape the conversation surrounding each election. In addition, individuals can make unlimited donations to candidates as a result of McCutcheon, and corporations may donate to political action committees who funnel donations in limited amounts directly to the campaigns. 

This may explain why candidates across the country are focusing on issues which seem irrelevant to the states they are campaigning in. 

For example, Scott Brown—who is running for the Senate in New Hampshire—has been running advertisements which aim to create fear regarding illegal immigration from Mexico despite the fact that the only foreign border New Hampshire has is with Canada and the state has one of the smallest illegal immigrant populations in the country per the New York Times. 

During a recent debate, Brown also claimed that weak border security could lead to our country being permeated by the Ebola virus and ISIS terrorists. 

It is a weak argument with little to no evidence to support it, but nevertheless Brown’s position and similar arguments made by candidates across the country regarding the same issues have succeeded in making voters fearful during this election cycle. 

While issues of national concern should be discussed in local congressional races, the fact that these issues have garnered so much more airtime than others that perhaps more directly affect the people of states like New Hampshire may leave some citizens ignorant about what their newly elected officials feel about that which is of greater concern to them. 

Voters will vote based on what they know about the candidates’ positions. 

If irrelevant issues dominate the conversation, many voters may decide who to vote for based on issues which are not pertinent to them or their interests.

`When one person can have such disproportionate influence on the future of the country, there is a reciprocal effect that renders those with lower incomes almost irrelevant to the election process. While most people only have one vote and perhaps a little time to volunteer for a campaign, wealthy individuals and corporations have significant influence on both the opinions of the candidates whose campaigns that they or their company’s PACs donate to, and the opinions of the voters if they choose to donate to super PACs who run advertisements.

Given the ever increasing correlation between one’s wealth and one’s political clout, the Supreme Court rulings effectively endorse the idea that certain individuals and entities with more money can have more speech than those with less money. 

This system seems inherently undemocratic. Such great disparities in influence over elections undermines the democratic nature of the process.

In order to make our most important democratic process more fair, Congress must over-turn Citizens United as well as passing limits on campaign contributions for wealthy individuals. Political campaigns should rely on grassroots involvement, rather than corporate donations and advertisements run by outside groups. 

The issues discussed by candidates which voters subsequently vote on should be decided based on the concerns of the citizens in each state, rather than big donors who may live in a different part of the country. 

Our government must make sure that the economic inequality, which is pervading our society, can no longer infect our most important democratic process.