One of the underlying narratives of this most recent election cycle was the historic amount of money being poured into campaigns across the country and how this would affect the campaigns. Two years ago the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Citizens United, reversing the campaign finance laws that had long protected our democracy. The decision allows for unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions to Super PACs, which then donate to campaigns. Super PACs are supposedly not coordinating with the campaigns to which they donate, but what qualifies as coordination is dubious at best.

The enormous amount of money spent in the campaigns was a common focal point for journalists and pundits, many of whom tried to predict what these contributions would mean for the landscape of our democracy. Many of us on the finance reform side of things approached the election with doomsayers in our minds, convinced that the election would be bought, and the wealthiest would once again come out on top. A quick survey of the Nov. 7 winners shows that was not the case. Despite having had hundreds of millions of dollars spent against him, President Obama came out on top. Locally, Linda McMahon poured $40 million of her own money into her senatorial campaign, only to lose to Chris Murphy by 12 points (a significant margin in what was considered a competitive race). Many pundits and commentators have taken this as a sign that the Citizens United decision does not matter and that unlimited spending does nothing to hamper the democratic process. This view is very optimistic, and in my opinion, not the wisest.

This election cycle is estimated to have cost over $6 billion, and because of secret spending, it is impossible to know what the true number is. Even if the highest spender did not always win, the bar has been irreversibly raised. The amount of money a candidate has in his or her war chest may not decide the election, but it presents a significant barrier for most Americans who would ever consider running for office. If our democracy is ruled by the people, then shouldn’t the opportunity to lead be open to all citizens?

Citizens United decision introduced even more complexities into campaign finance law. Accordingly, it is necessary to approach campaign spending with the proper degree of nuance. It used to be that all significant spending would come from what the candidates had raised and their respective parties. Thanks to the influx of outside groups, the sum of two candidates’ expenditures is hardly equal to the amount of money poured into a race. The ability of outside groups to buy ad-time and send out mailers means that a candidate must raise enough to compete not just against his/her opponent, but against those outside groups as well. Candidate A could have much higher expenditures than Candidate B, but if Candidate A is facing attack ads from an outside group, this difference is to be expected. Progressive candidate and senator-elect Elizabeth Warren outraised all other senate candidates, however she had to compete with Super PAC groups spending tens of millions of dollars against her.

Along with analyzing the past, we must also look to the future. What can we project about 2016 from what we have learned in 2012? If many of the pundits are right, and money didn’t matter, it is highly possible that the large donors will go back to more traditional ways of influencing legislation, such as lobbying and issue education. After all, millions of dollars with no return is a pretty poor investment. However, if money is still very much a factor, there is reason to be alarmed. As the first presidential cycle after 2010, this was an experiment for everyone involved. There is a good chance that donors and Super PAC controllers will go back to the drawing board—reanalyzing how and where they spent money, and what was most effective.

Democracy Matters, and many other groups, seeks to reverse the course of unlimited campaign spending and restore legitimacy to our democracy. One strong alternative is the public financing of elections. Already active in several states, public financing has been very helpful in opening up the opportunity to run for office. Wesleyan alumnus Matt Lesser was elected to the Connecticut House of Representatives using public financing. Imagine how many passionate and qualified people would run for public office if financing were not a concern.

There are many lessons to take away from the 2012 elections, but we should be careful not to disregard the important role that money played. Unlimited and secret contributions are a formidable threat to our democracy and should not be underestimated.