It's frustrating that while the government can't limit your spending as a candidate, it can limit your donations without violating the First Amendment. So Michael Bloomberg could drop $2 billion to try to get himself elected president, but he can't even donate five grand to someone he thinks would do a better job.

Much of the whining about massive spending stems from critics' elitist view of politics. If we were all conscientious enough to read the New York Times, watch every presidential debate, and attend the church of Russert every Sunday, then campaigns wouldn't have to vie for our attention in the chaotic consumer marketplace. But it doesn't work that way in our democracy.

The pundits who decry high campaign costs are often the same people who rail against low voter turnout. Their angst is contradictory. Turning out voters takes money—lots of it. In 2004, the Bush campaign spent $345 million, and the Kerry campaign spent $310 million—both recordbreaking sums, which were credited with increasing turnout to 122 million voters. That $655 million total worked out to $5.37 spent per "consumer."

Even though that's a low per capita cost, the increasing price of campaigns is swamping the public financing program that matches funds for candidates who abide by its draconian spending limits. Meanwhile, the public's support of the program is plummeting. Voters don't seem to want their tax dollars earmarked for candidates they don't support. All of the 2008 front-runners opted out of the program for the primary season, as Bush and Kerry did in 2004.

Fundraising ability does reflect political appeal in our market-based political culture. Given the national mood, it's hardly surprising that both the Democratic Party's establishment candidate, Hillary Clinton, and its insurgent, Obama, raised more than $100 million last year, while no Republican did. Nor is money always the deciding factor: The low-budget Republican candidate Mike Huckabee handily upset Mitt Romney's juggernaut in the Iowa caucuses. All in all, 2008 seems to be a particularly bad year to be making the case that money plays a pernicious role in our politics.

Many citizens feel empowered by the chance to put their money where their vote is. Obama's campaign had more than a quarter-million individual donors by mid-January, thanks in part to the instant access to campaigns provided by the internet.

The big money in presidential politics reflects both the resources used to reach the least engaged voters and the surging engagement of millions more. That's not a matter for hand-wringing. That's a cause for celebration.