We all know that money was the big winner in the midterm elections. But just how big? Big, big, big! Bigggggggg money!

At the Center for Responsive Politics, Russ Choma quantifies just how big the big big money was this time around: a total of $3.67 billion spent on the midterms (with just slightly more spent by Republicans), and a victory by the higher-spending candidate in 82% of Senate races and 94% of House races. There appears to be a slight correlation!

Increasing political spending and the direct link between money and winning elections are odious but longstanding trends. The real alarming news is a new trend:

What is different is the apparent decline in the number of donors. Just as every election since 1998 has been more expensive than the last comparable one, every election also saw more donors than the one before. It appears the 2014 election will break that chain, with a smaller number of overall individual donors. And the campaigns themselves are projected to spend less money than in the previous election: In 2010, they spent $1.8 billion, and this cycle they are projected to lay out $1.5 billion.

Even fewer people who may conceivably have some influence with their elected representatives—just what we need. And if you think that decline in direct campaign spending is a good sign, it's not. That spending has just shifted to shadowy, unaccountable outside groups funded by the very rich.

Plutocracy/ Oligarchy in 2016!

[Photo: AP]