People tend to get understandably uncomfortable with how much money is spent on politics. 

In poll after poll, most Americans express concern that too much money is damaging our democratic process. It’s a fair concern, but it’s also worth noting that the real danger is quite distinct from the actual dollar amount spent on campaigns or political messaging. 

Perspective is everything. While last year’s estimated $5.5 billion spent on the presidential election sounds like an awful lot, it’s still a little less than 1 percent of the overall amount spent in the United States economy for offline marketing and advertising. Some individual firms, such as Comcast, spend even more than that on marketing each year. 

In context, given the outsized influence presidential politics play in business and personal life, you could argue it’s pretty surprising there isn’t significantly more being spent each election cycle. 

The real concern about political spending is likely less about the actual dollar amount, however, and more about the potentially corrupting influence such sums of campaign cash might have on politicians. Regardless of how much (or how little) is spent, there’s always a real chance that some donor somewhere is looking to extract a quid pro quo from some candidate for giving them a helping hand during election season. 

Democrats are suggesting that this sort of corrupting influence could only get worse if the Supreme Court overturns limits on the amount political parties can spend in conjunction with local candidates. 

But is that really a legitimate concern?

As with seemingly everything nowadays, the answer to that question likely depends on your partisan affiliation. There are purely political reasons for Democrats to be worried and Republicans to be thrilled about the potential for more Republican dollars to flow into Nevada elections — and most experts seem to agree that is precisely what will happen if the court lifts current limits on spending by parties. 

One fact beyond doubt is that lifting such limits would, indeed, bring more money to local races overall. But that’s not inherently corrosive to our democratic process. 

Money by itself is not an intrinsically evil force in politics. On the most basic level, it’s a necessary equalizer for candidates who don’t have a vast fortune of their own to spend on communicating with potential voters. Money is, essentially, nothing more than a megaphone. And unless a candidate enjoys the profound advantage of being an incumbent who already receives substantial media attention and name recognition, that megaphone is necessary to run for office. 

This is why courts consider political spending by donors, activists, individuals and even corporations to be an extension of our First Amendment rights — because the right to spend money to make your voice heard, support a cause or support a candidate is a core component of exercising your freedom of speech. 

Allowing political parties to exercise their own collective First Amendment rights by contributing to local races shouldn’t be considered a gross erosion of democratic norms. It should instead be considered little more than a natural consequence of party politics. 

Certainly, there will always be concerns that the mere presence of more money in local races could result in corrupting influence from megadonors and special interests. And it’s easy to see why. After all, money isn’t merely some abstract component of free speech; it’s also a way to buy influence in political circles. 

And when the court last struck down restraints on political spending in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, a deluge of political action committees and independent organizations suddenly proliferated across the nation, eager to start using wheelbarrows full of cash to peddle their own influence in local, state and national elections. 

Just like the money itself, however, that attempt to buy influence isn’t necessarily eroding our democratic process. In one study looking at the effects of the Citizens United case, data suggested there was a democratization of influence on the state level — with smaller corporate donors and new industries suddenly able to spend money in a way that made them more politically consequential than they would have been otherwise. 

In other words, prior to Citizens United, entrenched special interests already held significant influence over our political process. But after the case was decided, a far wider range of activists, corporate interests and community organizations were able to have their voices heard by would-be politicians and elected officials. 

That newly found influence paid dividends for ordinary voters. As money began flowing through independent groups in the years that followed, local politics became more competitive and state policies shifted toward more labor-friendly and pro-growth economic agendas. 

So, yes, money matters in electoral politics. Of course it does. That’s why we donate to candidates, join advocacy organizations or donate to nonprofits that promote our values, policy priorities and civil concerns. 

And while we’re right to be suspicious of our elected representatives possibly dabbling in quid pro quo arrangements with large donors or politically powerful campaign contributors, allowing political parties to spend more of their donors’ money to help elect their own candidates isn’t some subversion of democratic norms. 

Indeed, it’s probably what most ordinary members of both parties imagined their money would be spent on when they donated it in the first place.  

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him on Twitter @schausmichaelor on Substack @creativediscourse.