Walking into the autumn sunlight in Washington D.C. last week, I received a notification on my mobile phone: “The Final Money Sprint to November.”

Seeing that headline frustrated me. It didn’t bother me that one candidate might be raising more or less money than another, or what it could indicate about the energy in this current election cycle.

What used to be a tool for supporting voter engagement and highlighting policy stances, now seems to have evolved into a goal in itself. The candidate with the deepest pockets often appears to have an edge towards victory, regardless of qualifications or commitment to public service. This is not just a subjective observation – the data backs up this assertion.

As we near the conclusion of the 2024 elections, news broke that Vice President Kamala Harris has broken the fundraising records for a single quarter. Does this make her more suitable for the presidency? Not necessarily, but the media coverage of the race for campaign money is almost as intense as scrutinizing the policy stances of Harris compared to former President Donald Trump.

The continuous influx of money into politics has ensured my continuation of work, at least in theory. I am in charge of OpenSecrets, a non-profit organization that maintains the oldest and most thorough database in the nation documenting the financial aspects of politics. This includes tracking campaign contributions and expenditure, lobbying activities, as well as the shadowy world of “dark money” that channels undisclosed funding from obscure sources into political operations.

The influx of money into presidential elections over the past two decades has dramatically escalated, from $2.6 billion in 2000 to $7.7 billion in 2020, adjusted for inflation. A vast majority of this growth occurred between 2016 and 2020. While a final report will follow at the end of the current cycle, our research team reasonably predicts that the 2024 elections will surpass the total spending seen in 2020.

The question arises – why this enormous surge in campaign finances?

Prior to 2000, most presidential candidates received public funding, which was perceived as sufficient for running an election at the time. However, the rejection of public funding by Ross Perot and Steve Forbes in the ‘90s for self-funding their campaigns brought in a significantly larger amount of capital than previously seen. This set the stage for extensive wealth, either earned or raised, to become the new norm in campaigning.

Within a brief period, we transitioned from presidential candidates raising tens of millions to exceeding hundreds of millions for an election. Another crucial change was the passing of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act to curb the influence of money on politics. Limiting “soft money” and adjusting caps on “hard money” donations aimed to restrict the impact of money, but the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FEC reshaped the campaign finance territory and introduced “dark money.”

This ruling enabled corporations, unions, and nonprofits to spend unlimited amounts to support or criticize candidates. It also empowered affluent individuals to exert more influence by donating to super PACs, making independent expenditures without coordinating with campaign candidates.

This implies that candidates, who may not have had the same track record, could suddenly emerge as major contenders – or even winners – merely due to the backing of a wealthy donor. None of these corporate or individual contributors are obligated to disclose their donations, thus the term “dark money.”

Lastly, a more recent and arguably the most consequential change has been the rapid evolution of technology, making fundraising quicker, cheaper, and ubiquitous. The internet allows candidates to garner national attention and raise money from across the country effortlessly. Platforms like ActBlue and WinRed, established in the 2000s, have processed billions of dollars in recent years, transforming politics into a domain that would entice a venture capitalist.

It’s primarily this last adjustment, when combined with others, that has deluged our presidential election cycle with money at a level unimaginable by our predecessors or founding fathers.

Therefore, we circle back to our fundamental question: Is money the method or purpose of an election, and does public service even play a role in voters’ choices?

If we allow boundless sums of money into our political system, we must prioritize transparency in the process. If we declare that money is a form of “free speech,” then we must recognize that a crucial component of free speech in a democratic republic is identifying the speaker. Without transparency, our democracy risks devolving into a system of pay-to-play.

Until all political contributions adhere to transparency regulations, we can hope that some of those wealthy donors might acknowledge and invest in the foundational underpinnings of democracy. This includes supporting the less glamorous components that sustain our system like running elections, the news media, and efforts such as ours that grant access to data regarding financial influences in politics.

These establishments ensure accountability among our leaders, ensuring they serve public interests rather than personal gains.

Without transparency and accountability, the public’s confidence in our system is at risk. If trust wavers, we will only continue to retreat into polarized, partisan factions, exposing our democracy to potential dangers.

We must take action now to safeguard the transparency and integrity of our democracy, elections, and the future of our nation.

Hilary Braseth is the executive director of OpenSecrets.