The 2012 presidential election has been defined by one thing: money. Hundreds of millions of dollars from wealthy donors have been pouring into candidates’ campaigns.

In a 5-4 decision in 2010, the Supreme Court issued “The Citizens United ruling,” which states that the First Amendment also pertains to money and political campaign donations.  In essence, they ruled that money is speech and there are some people willing to “speak” a lot this election year.

In Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, millions of dollars have been poured in running attack ads against candidates, organizing events, and promoting campaigns.

The difference from any other election year lies in how much candidates can receive from wealthy donors. Now that donors can remain anonymous and give as much money to Super PACs as they want, stories have begun to surface involving candidates’ Super PACs on the fringe of $100,000,000 in a single fundraising event.

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has been given $11,000,000 from one billionaire donor alone. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney spent more than $14,000,000 on attack ads on other candidates in Florida before the primary and easily won that state.

This is not democracy. This money does not come without strings attached. These donors have a certain agenda and are willing to give huge sums of money to a candidate who will further their interests. Consequentially, the interests of the super-rich rarely line up with the interests of most Americans.

Money has always been in politics, and while people have argued that elections have been bought, it’s almost certain to be happening now. When money trumps issues, democracy has been lost.

Additionally, the ruling has given more influence to Washington lobbyists, who currently outnumber legislators three to one. Money in politics equals power, and as the old adage goes, “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And with the new ruling, more money is going into campaigns than ever before.

Money may equal speech, but it also consolidates power in the hands of the very rich.