By Lisa Conley
Round Table editor-in-chief

As the primary elections begin to heat up, it’s becoming apparent that one thing is driving the election results: money.

As of Jan. 31, Massachusetts governor and Republican forerunner Mitt Romney reportedly spent $63,650,764 on his campaign, almost twice as much as any other GOP candidate.

Although it is difficult to determine a definite pattern at this point in the primaries, if the election winners continue to have excessive overheads, then one thing is certain: money not only funds campaigns, it essentially buys votes. After all, more money equals more publicity, which ultimately equals more votes.

It’s a simple equation, but a controversial one at best, because if money does truly control campaign results, then America’s “democracy” has some serious flaws.

Two years ago, the Supreme Court grappled with a case involving corporations funding political opponents. In a five to four decision, the court ruled that banning corporate political-spending was unconstitutional and a violation of the first amendment.

Banning corporate spending? Yes, that’s wrong, but what about limiting the spending? Corporations would still be allowed to fund political favorites, but not to the extent that they could cripple an opponent with less funding.

Some argue that money does not have any influence on the outcome of elections. According to the article “Money Politics and the First Amendment” by Major Garrett, in six of the 15 Senate races in 1996, the candidate who spent less money won, which proves that money does not buy campaigns, right?

Wrong. The math in this situation is not complicated. If in six of the 15 Senate elections the candidate who spent less money won, then in nine of the 15 elections i.e. the majority, the candidate who did spend more money emerged victorious.

The Maryland primary will occur on April 3 and the major question is whether or not the winner of the election will have the same extreme budget as the other winners throughout the nation.