DEMOCRACY in America does not come cheap. The election cycle that has just limped to its exhausted conclusion cost around $6 billion - a new record, as in every new presidential cycle. But when you consider that Americans were electing on November 6th not just the president but 435 congressmen and 33 senators in a vast country of 330m people, where electioneering is primarily conducted by paid television advertisements, the figure may not seem quite so high. Americans spend more than that every year on potato crisps. Nothing much can be done to rein in the total amount. But efforts to curb the amount any one individual or entity can spend on these vital contests have been going on since the Tillman Act of 1907. In one sense, they have been successful. There are strict, and rather low, limits on how much money presidential and congressional campaigns can get from any individual, and an outright ban on companies and unions donating to candidates directly. Yet there have always been ways of getting round those restrictions, and a fresh tide of "soft money" was unleashed in 2010 when the Supreme Court ruled that, under the First Amendment, which protects free speech, independent organisations may support or oppose candidates or their messages, however they are funded, so long as they do not co-ordinate with those candidates" campaigns. The Citizens United decision was controversial, and there is even some talk of a constitutional amendment to reverse it (see article). That would be wrong on three counts. First, it would not change much. A lot of America's political excesses have to do with other things, such as the timing of its elections and gerrymandering. Second, no campaign-finance system is perfect: all involve trade-offs. In other countries politicians may spend less time dialling for dollars, but the state restricts political argument far more. America's constitution would not allow a system like that in Britain, where campaigns are shorter and political advertising is restricted. And, third, given America's near-fanatical devotion to free speech with all the benefits and irritants that brings, Citizens United was correctly decided. It would be strange to allow some entities (the New York Times, or Rupert Murdoch's Fox News) perfect freedom to express their views at election time while silencing others (chambers of commerce, unions, environmental activists, churches). What about bloggers? Tweeters? Or people who put up videos on YouTube rather than television? Follow the money Yet there are ways of making America's system work better while retaining its spirit. The so-called 501 (c) s - the vehicles for most of this new money - could be required to explain who they get their cash from, and disclosure laws should also be tightened for super-PACs, another campaigning outfit. A useful draft law, the DISCLOSE Act, would require any organisation that spends more than $10,000 on political campaigning to identify any donor who gives it more than $10,000. The current limit for a donation to a presidential campaign is only $5,000, which must be disclosed. The bill was wrongly blocked by a Republican filibuster. The rules should also be changed to ensure that "independent expenditures" are just that. Too often, super-PACs are staffed by close associates of the candidate to whom they are linked, feature him as their "guest speaker" and target their money exactly where he wants. A beefed-up Federal Election Commission would help here; the present one is weak and, amazingly, the terms of five of its six members have expired without agreement on who should replace them. Such reforms could help keep free speech fair.