This was a fun and informative video, but I think the ending scenes are somewhat misleading. That fund-raising for this year's presidential election will top $1 billion is not in itself sinister; as Dubner and Levitt point out in Freakonomics, Americans spend about $1 billion every year on chewing gum. Presumably election for our highest office should be as valuable to us as our gum.

This is not to say that the large sums necessary to run for President do not have distortionary or exclusionary effects - just that a dollar figure alone cannot convey these effects. I hope future videos will find an irreverent way to examine some of the laws Congress might enact to make Presidential elections more competitive - more generous public financing, forcing broadcast networks to offer discount air time to candidates, maybe even some spending limit for candidates (obviously raises constitutional questions).

Lastly, to the extent that our campaign finance system needs fixing, the presdiential election offers perhaps the most eye-popping figures but not the best evidence for reform. Since 1973, we at least have had public financing for Presidential nominees who choose to participate; also, given the importance of Presidential elections, lesser-known/poorer candidates have real opportunities for free air time (witness Ron Paul, Huckabee, Kucinich). It is at the Congressional level where the system is really broken: no public financing, and the ability of better-funded incumbents to totally dominate local media (one reason the re-election rate in the House hovers around 90%). Perhaps make a video about this!