The combined wealth of the 115th Congress is $2.43 billion, give or take a few vacation homes. That is a 20 percent increase over the wealth of the 114th Congress, RollCall reports, meaning that congressional wealth is climbing as American wealth inequality grows. This is not to suggest that Congress is uniformly wealthy. There are layers within layers, even inside a throbbing ball of money. As of 2016, twelve lawmakers owned more than half of Congress’s wealth. The bottom 123 members were actually in debt, due mostly to business and campaign debt—and no wonder. The same year, a victorious Senate campaign cost around $10.4 million. Add outside money to that figure, and it increases to a lofty $19.4 million, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Political campaigns are luxuries, available mostly to the wealthy. This is not news. But let’s consider more deeply the implications of this state of affairs. With congressional wealth at obscene highs, it’s clearer than ever that riches buy influence. It stands to reason that when the poor are de facto barred from office, inequality ossifies. An entire class lacks the means to represent itself, and must instead rely on inconsistent allies higher up the income ladder. The result is a government that does not meet an important democratic standard. Campaign finance reform is not typically framed as an inequality story, but it is one.

While no law prevents outside donors, for example, from investing in the campaign of a low-income person, the likelihood that they’ll do so is low. The problem is social capital: Low-income people lack it, and so their personal networks do not often contain millionaires with open pocketbooks. “A lot of times the need to fundraise large amounts of money prevents a lot of people who are qualified and who are leaders in that community from running for office because they don’t have networks that include wealthy donors,” said Allie Boldt, a Washington, D.C.-based counsel for the think tank Demos.

One way to rectify this situation is through the redistribution of capital. Socialism, as Elizabeth Bruenig recently articulated it at The Washington Post, is a direct solution to the inequality expressed by the state of campaign finance. But short of a political revolution, there are other measures that can be taken to smooth entry for low-income candidates. From Seattle to Washington, D.C., many states and municipalities are creating new programs designed to diversify the donor class and open wider doors for candidates who represent marginalized communities.

“One reform that’s been really successful around the country is to pass programs that publicly finance elections,” Boldt added. These programs provide public funds to participating candidates. New York City has one such program; the Washington, D.C., city council passed another in 2018, which it modeled on a New York City concept that has existed in various iterations since 2001.