In our democracy, no amount of money can buy the presidency.

But in the modern era, any successful campaign is likely to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

And second only to polling data in this extra

weird and eventful season of American politics, money feels like a good way of keeping score.

From KERA in Dallas, this is think. I'm Chris Boyd. Many Americans were still marveling at

Donald Trump's $52.8 million fundraising day in the wake of his felony convictions in late May.

Then came upstart Democratic nominee, hopeful Kamala Harris, who stepped in after Joe Biden stepped down and smashed Trump's personal best by raising more than $81 million in 24 hours.

The money keeps rolling in to support both Trump and Harris, from mega donors to super PACs and from regular people writing checks

at the kitchen table. So what does all this money tell us about how these two candidates are

positioned for November and what will their campaigns decide to spend it on? My guest today is journalist

Teddy Schleifer, who covers campaign finance and the political influence of billionaires for the

New York Times. Teddy, welcome to think. Thanks for having me. Is money a good way of keeping

score of how well candidates are doing? You know, I think before 2016, you would have said yes.

You know, the ways in which candidates have raised money has gone undergone transformation

since the Citizens United decision in 2010.

And now it's not really clear that money

really matters as much as we think it did. Or maybe people feared it would after that decision.

Nowadays, we see candidates win, who, especially at the presidential level, who are outraised.

And people raise money in different ways.

Some people raise money all from big donors, all from small donors.

And that can also impact kind of whether or not a candidate is quote unquote winning.

So short answer is I don't I don't really kind of take the top line number to mean everything.

...