The $6 billion election

This past election was the most expensive in history. All told, campaigns for federal office are estimated to have spent $6 billion, $700 million more than the previous most expensive election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Six. Billion. Dollars.

The presidential race cost $2.6 billion alone, smaller than the $2.8 billion spent in 2008.

That doesn't even begin to count the thousands of local and state races. Or the ballot questions in every state.

The money flows in from everywhere – from individual donors to multi-billionaires, insurance conglomerates to labor unions and, of course, every shade of special interest in between.

The amount of money that has been spent during this election season is so outrageous it’s hard to know where to start being outraged.

Should we be appalled that campaigns think it's appropriate to spend so freely when so many are struggling to make ends meet?

Should we be terrified that a relatively small number of huge donors are influencing the political system by funneling untold millions toward their favored candidate?

Should we deplore the fact that most of the money has been spent on negative advertising and attack ads?

Should we just throw up our hands in disgust and pray for it to be over?

In the aftermath of the most expensive campaign in history, it is time that we, as a country, had a serious conversation about campaign finance reform.

Why haven't we already had this conversation? Why hasn't the issue of money in politics been addressed?

It’s quite simple –  the people who directly benefit from the cascade of spending are the same people who can enact meaningful reform.

Candidates certainly don’t want to fix the system – raising more money than your opponent usually guarantees a win.

The rulers of the political industry, the politically connected marketers, strategy consultants and spin doctors hired by the campaigns, certainly don't want less money in politics. 

With $6 billion being spent this year, political marketing is one of the few growth markets in the country and there are some very well-connected people who are making money hand over fist in this campaign.

Powerful special interests, from Wall Street investment banks to the Sierra Club also oppose reforming campaign finances – money equals access (read influence) when a candidate becomes an elected official.

Those who directly benefit from billion-dollar campaigns don't want the system fixed, but it needs to be. Candidates should be limited in the amount of money they can raise and spend.

Limiting spending means candidates need to make a real case to voters, instead of flooding the airwaves with expensive attack ads.

Without the benefit of massive war chests, candidates would have to appeal to individual voters on the basis of their proposals and policies, not the skill of their marketing team.

A level playing field could give candidates outside of Democrats and Republicans a fighting chance, or at least bring more perspectives into the game.

Finally, limiting spending might give campaigns the appearance of honesty –  at least we'll know they're not being bought.

It's probably a pipe dream – after the 2010 Supreme Court decision on Citizen's United more, not less money in politics is the name of the game.

But if we don't start thinking seriously about how to limit campaign spending, $6 billion could be pocket change compared to what the 2016 campaigns dole out.