With the upcoming elections comes debates about certain candidates, differing policy-making issues, and deeply rooted partisan division. The first thing that comes to my mind, however, is the juxtaposition of contemporary politics with the politics espoused by America 100 years ago. Specifically, I want to focus on the topic of campaign contributions. Some people believe that campaign contributions should be unlimited whereas others see this as potentially unfair because the rich already have so much power in the United States as it is. I am going to be examining two articles that cover this issue, both taken from the New York Times, one written in 2020 and the other written in 1924. The article written in 1924 leaves nothing to the imagination with the title “Campaign Fund Evil Beset Both Parties.” United States Senator Kenneth D. McKellar writes that “the giving of fabulous sums of money to bring about the nominations of candidates and their subsequent election to office must stop.” He goes on to stress the importance of limiting campaign contributions to both parties, Democrats and Republicans. The article written in 2020, entitled “Sanders Raised Stout $46.5M in February; Warren Got $29M,” delves into more particular statistics, listing the dollar amounts of the total contributions made for each presidential nominee, and perhaps McKellar would be disheartened to see that these numbers are far more astronomical now than they were in his time. This begs the question, is America in fact a nation that is ruled by an oligarchy of the wealthy, the top 1%? Regardless of what political affiliation you personally align with, the fairness of such a system must come into question when millionaires and billionaires are at a huge advantage as opposed to more grassroots campaigns that must crowdsource to fund their causes. I thought it was interesting to see this issue debated in the 1920s and even more so that it is still so heavily discussed in our contemporary political arena.