It seems like Meg Whitman is everywhere these days. I can’t watch television for 10 straight minutes without hearing her tell me what a failure Jerry Brown has been throughout his political career. Changing the channel doesn’t seem to help either; Meg-TV is, after all, a fully functional, multi-station operation.

The endless barrage of ads has gotten me to thinking lately: just how much time can a billionaire political candidate afford to buy on the airwaves?

The answer: evidently a lot.

There are many arguments as to why this country needs campaign finance reform. Exhibit A, however, could be the California gubernatorial campaign. If you’ve watched television or listened to the radio for more than a few minutes at a time recently, chances are you’ve seen or heard the commercials, too; Whitman has run countless of them in her bid to win the unenviable job of succeeding Governor Schwarzenegger.

Along the way, the Republican billionaire has faced scrutiny for trying to buy the office. With less than two months remaining, Whitman has already poured about $104 million of her own money into her campaign. Not to be outdone by New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who spent $109 million on his re-election campaign last year, Whitman has said she is willing to spend $150 million to get elected.

And why not? For the former E-bay CEO estimated to be worth $1.4 billion, that’s chump change.

Jerry Brown, on the other hand, finally started running his own ads last week. It took the Democratic gubernatorial candidate so long, in part, because he simply doesn’t have the money to compete—at least not over the airwaves. How could he? After all, as of last month his campaign has raised just $24 million.

There is something fundamentally wrong with a system where one candidate can effectively blanket the airwaves months ahead of the other. Whitman’s strategy actually appears to be working—albeit probably not much as she had hoped—as a recent poll shows her with a narrow lead over Brown. If Brown weren’t already so well known in the state, it’s likely that figure would have been much higher.

California isn’t the only state where money is flowing into politics like water into a river. Record amounts of money are being spent on political campaigns across the country. The midterm elections are already on pace to become the most expensive election ever. Apparently, political spending is one of the few things that hasn’t been negatively impacted by the dismal economy.

According to the Associate Press, the latest financial figures reveal that House and Senate candidates have already raised more than $1.2 billion. The total figure is expected to easily eclipse the then-record $1.4 billion spent in the 2008 election.

As if that wasn’t enough, spending on political advertisements is also up nationally. Ad week reported that spending on political advertisements is expected to reach $4.2 billion this cycle, or about double what was spent in 2008. 

The top spender on political ads so far? No surprise there—it’s Meg Whitman, of course!

There are other factors contributing to the rise in political money this election cycle, including the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case earlier this year that essentially allows corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political campaigns. The ruling effectively gave them the same first amendment rights as people (that is, if people—other than Whitman—had that kind of discretionary money to throw around on politics). As long as Citizens United remains the law of the land, political spending will probably increase across the board in the coming years.

These days, politician can’t get elected without amassing a large war chest, ensuring that the only people who can successfully run are either wealthy themselves, or have access to massive amounts of money. It affords them many of the luxuries required in today's political campaigns: they can buy advertisements, hire pollsters and strategists, and bombard their state or district with a variety of marketing techniques. Is that what our democracy has become?

While Meg Whitman may not be beholden to anyone but herself of if she is elected, the current system ensures that most of our elected officials (whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent) will continue to be obliged to those who can afford to fund them: namely the special interests and rich donors that pump their campaigns full of cash. For a tiny sliver of the country, this system works great; for the rest of us, not so much.

Campaign finance reform might not solve all of these problems, but an overhaul of the system could potentially help level the playing field. With all due respect to Meg Whitman, the only real failure in this election cycle would be for a candidate to do anything and everything within their (financial) power to buy their way into an elected office.  That is something the citizens of this country cannot afford.

Reach Editor Tracy Bloom here.