The Georgia sixth congressional district special election clearly demonstrates the need for campaign finance reform at all levels of government. 

With more than $55 million funneling into the campaign coffers of Republican Karen Handel, the victor, and political newcomer Democrat Jon Ossoff, the runoff was clearly the most expensive House race in U.S. history. 

The lion’s share of the money coming from political action committees outside of the district, outside of metro Atlanta and outside of the state of Georgia. 

The high-stakes race to fill the seat in the House of Representatives, vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price when he received the federal appointment from President Donald Trump, was largely seen as a referendum on the Trump presidency. 

Handel won the hotly contested race in the district that was once a Republican stronghold. 

Because of the national party implications, money came pouring in to the metro Atlanta district. 

Americans want to believe that money cannot buy an election and while that remains to be seen, Ossoff significantly outspent Handel. 

The amount of money spent on both campaigns is simply staggering. 

Big money and political corruption go hand in hand. 

The issue, however, is complicated. 

The U.S. Supreme Court has opined that inhibiting political support coming from large corporations, unions and non-profit agencies would erode First Amendment protections. 

We believe, among other things, increased transparency and scrutiny regarding who is giving what to whom is critical. More detailed disclosures available in real time through online portals is a must. 

Limiting the amount of money and influence of super PACS is something most Americans agree needs to be done but also presents a slippery slope that could threaten the free speech clause. 

While direct donations to campaigns are limited by caps, super PACS can receive unlimited contributions and only have to disclose periodically. 

On the one hand, capping all contributions — including super PAC money — seems like an easy fix but could also be viewed as an assault on democracy, limiting the rights of individuals and groups to support whom they will. 

It was that concern that framed the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision effectively giving corporations and unions the green light to put lots of cash behind candidates who support their respective agendas. 

So, while additional caps on funding are both complicated and controversial, increased disclosure and transparency should not be.

At the very least, voters should be able to know throughout the course of an election, right up until the time they go the polls, what corporations and principals, labor unions, non-profit agencies, groups and unique individuals are supporting a candidate, and at what levels. 

While the Federal Election Commission maintains a robust database, monies passed through PACS, super PACS, corporations, unions and agencies need even further scrutiny and greater transparency. 

One of the problems with the FEC database is that individual contributors self-identify and may use different names, different company affiliations or employers for separate contributions and therefore can be difficult to track. While the FEC database of contributions is searchable by various fields, the accuracy of the information is dependent on the reliability of how the information is gathered. 

A real-time disclosure system that requires user verification would mean voters would not have to wait until filing deadlines to learn how money is influencing a campaign, a candidate or potentially how government will function.