The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided there no longer should be restrictions on how much money a single donor can give in an election season, a ruling that has many wondering how upcoming elections will play out.
There are concerns that big donors will have too much influence in campaigns, leading to inequality in the political landscape, according to David Berman, professor of political science at the Morrison Institute for Public Policy at Arizona State University.
During Friday's broadcast of Arizona Week, Berman also argued many candidates are already dependant on a handful of wealthy donors, and the Supreme Court ruling could magnify that.
There are candidates "kissing the ring of a billionaire to get funding," he said from a studio in Phoenix.
"It has gotten to the point where many of our campaigns are playgrounds of billionaires who monopolize the media," he argued.
He said having no limits for financial contributions will change the landscape, possibly tilting it to a more conservative direction.
Berman argued wealthier people, particularly billionaires, tend to be on the right side of the political spectrum, and if those who have more money will have the most influence, then voters will only receive one-sided political messages.
"We are not getting the message of balance," he said. "Why should a billionaire have the right to impose his views on other people? Where is the other message?"
However, how much money a person wants to give to a candidate has been defended under the First Amendment.
"It has been defended on the grounds of free speech...and the court sees it that way," Berman said.
But "other people see it as neglecting the problem that results from that, because what is really saying is 'the people who have a lot of money could speak a little louder,'" he said.