The week’s headlines brought news that Rep. Richard Neal added a whopping $705,419 to his campaign account in 2011. After spending $428,072, he’s left with $2.4 million to spend in this year’s campaign.

So let me say, Congratulations, Rep. Neal! That’s quite a haul. That $2.4 million (plus whatever is raised in 2012) will pay for a lot of television ads, mailings, pollsters and consultants. And many other things, too. All of the trappings of a modern campaign in an age in which politics has become a big business – and, not coincidentally, when big business has taken over our politics.

Rep. Neal also raised another $251,500 in 2011 for his leadership PAC – dubbed “Madison PAC” – an entity that can be used to spread money around to other legislators whose support might be needed for, say, a contested race for a committee chairmanship.

My goodness, there are so many ways for big money to distort our democracy that it’s hard to keep up!

Of course, virtually all of the money raised by Rep. Neal's campaign in 2011 came from political action committees (about 76 percent) and lobbyists and corporate insiders (about 20 percent). Interests that are focused on the next quarter and fiscal year, not on the next generation.

And remarkably, only a mere 0.27 percent – about one-quarter of one percent – of that $705,419 came from contributors who gave less than $200. You know, regular folks who can’t afford to write $500, $1,000, and $2,500 checks to politicians.

Small contributions represented just $1,910 of $705,419. That is a truly stunning statistic. Why are there so few small contributors? That's a good question.

By comparison, my people- and volunteer-powered campaign raises 100 percent of our money in small contributions, all $99 or less.

Now, there’s nothing illegal about raising all that status-quo money from political action committees and a “Who’s Who” of powerful Washington lobbyists. It’s pretty much how it’s done by politicians from both major parties -- though not always to this extent. It’s simply accepted. It’s how the game is played. If you want to raise a lot of money, well, you better spend your nights at Washington fundraisers thrown for you by corporate PACs and lobbying firms.

That’s how you raise the big bucks.

The problem is that you can’t really stand up to powerful monied interests when you fund your campaign – almost exclusively – with their money. Period.

That money isn't always reflected in a voting record, which is just a record of what comes up for a vote. No, that money means legislation that’s never introduced or co-sponsored, speeches that aren’t given, urgent political reform that’s simply not championed. As I've said, it's the "silent killer" of real change.

Further, spending all that time with the wealthiest one percent has an effect on legislators and legislative priorities. President Obama himself described it in his 2006 book, “The Audacity of Hope,” when he wrote about the impact of spending so much time with big donors:

“Still, I know that as a consequence of my fund-raising I became more like the wealthy donors I met, in the very particular sense that I spent more and more of my time above the fray, outside the world of immediate hunger, disappointment, fear, irrationality, and frequent hardship of the other 99 percent of the population – that is, the people that I’d entered public life to serve.” (p. 114)

Why is it difficult to raise big money when you want to advance real political and economic reform?

Because there are few corporate PACs holding fundraisers for those who are full-throated supporters of public financing of elections.

There are no highly paid lobbyists using their money and influence to advance universal voter registration and an Election Day holiday.

There is no big-bank CEO writing checks to candidates who believe the Wall Street banks must be forced to write-down principal on underwater mortgages to keep families in their homes and preserve our neighborhoods.

There aren’t many lobbyists who get behind members of Congress who want to ban lobbyist contributions. (And there aren't many members of Congress who want a lifetime ban on going from Congress to lobbying, because that's the career path of so many currently in office.)

And those who donate big money don’t like candidates who opt-out of the fancy, high-dollar fundraising events where more is spent on a banquet room, dinner, and drinks in one night than many families in Springfield, Pittsfield and Holyoke will spend on food in six months.

Our legislators shouldn’t be forced to spend so much time raising millions of dollars from people and institutions that, at the end of the day, don’t want things to really change. Today’s scheme of privately-funded elections forces decent people to participate in a blatantly corrupt and broken system.

The goal of getting big money out of politics is simple: Public policy ideas – whether right or left, from Republicans or Democrats, loony or sane – should sink or swim on the merits and the support of the people, not on how much money or lobbyist power is behind them.

This year, in the contest to represent all the people of the new First Congressional District, we’re going to find out if someone can win without relying on all that status-quo money. Many don't believe it's possible. (They're the ones who tell me, often cheerfully: "I'm definitely voting for you, but you can never win!")

But I believe that we can, and will, win this election. Because if we can’t win with true grassroots people-power instead of corporate money, and can’t enact public financing of elections as well as overturn Citizens United, then we’re going to lose more than just elections.