Without some revision of the Federal Election Committee (FEC) oversight of political donations, our democracy could be on the ropes.  It took only six wealthy individuals to donate $800 million to the Republican’s 2024 presidential campaign.  That is probably enough to win the presidency, if not, only little more money might be needed.  That means as few as six people might be able to elect a President, enabling them to do irreputable damage to our democracy. 
For federal elections, the maximum an individual can contribute to a candidate is $3,500 per election according to the Federal Election Committee (FEC).  Unrestricted amount of donations, however, can be made through a Political Action Committee (PAC).  
A PAC is an organization that raises money to influence elections.  PACs can be established by individuals, businesses, labor unions, or other groups, and they use the funds they raise to support or oppose political candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation.  The organizers determine who PACs will support and sometimes how much their employees should contribute.  Money can be funneled through a PAC fund in unrestricted amounts.  What’s more, there are no limits of how much the candidates themselves can directly contribute of their own personal funds.
In addition, Trump raised $239 million in inauguration funds from corporations and wealthy individuals, many of them who sought to curry favor with the administration for ambassadorships, cabinet posts, or favorable regulatory decisions.
The more money spent by a candidate relative to his or her opponents, is an advantage in winning an election.  Yet it appears that money should not be used as an advantage in a democracy. We should choose the best candidate based on their qualifications and abilities, not as a result of their having more marketing funds.
The FEC should be able to establish rules for more parity of resources in campaigns, not allowing unlimited money from PAC funds or personal candidate funds. When you realize that only six people contributed more than three-quarters of a billion dollars to the Republican campaign, it is surely time for the Supreme Court to reconsider their previous unlimited funding rulings, like Citizens United.
Gerry Snyder
Ely