Here's an arresting statistic: in the United States, a country of 150 million registered voters, about 30,000 people account for 50 cents of every dollar worth of political contributions.
In fact, in 2016, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, 15 of those cents came from the pockets of an even tinier subset of just 50 individuals.
This may explain why, with the latest tax bill, America's Congressional Republicans are obediently bringing home the bacon for their most deep-pocketed benefactors.
The tax cut proposal that recently passed through the U.S. Senate addresses issues like taxes on inheritance, investments and business income – and does so in ways that will above all please the wealthiest Americans. What should this tell us? That this is what it happens when those who write the biggest cheques determine the fates of politicians. It started long before Donald Trump, and it's getting worse.
According to recent polls, the proposed tax reform is aggressively loathed by the broader population; both Gallup and Quinnipiac polls found 29 per cent support for the tax package, mostly from self-declared Republicans.
Maybe that's because the bill makes the tax code much more regressive – one more reason to leave Americans wondering whether their federal government is at their service, or that of mega-donors.
In case that sounds like hyperbole, consider what GOP Congressman Chris Collins of New York told The Hill newspaper about the tax plan in November: "My donors are basically saying, 'Get it done or don't call me again'."
The plan is also, according to Trump campaign adviser Stephen Moore, specifically designed to punish Democrats and their voters. As The Atlantic's Ron Brownstein put it, it's not just redistribution, it's retribution. This is a breakdown of democracy, and a failure of politics.
In Canada, meanwhile, our system for regulating money in politics is not perfect, but it is better. We have significant institutional safeguards that don't exist south of the border.
Electoral maps there are subject to relentless partisan gerrymandering; here, they are largely drawn up by independent and non-partisan commissions. And our campaign finance rules are comparatively robust, and have been tightened recently at the federal and provincial levels. Individual donation limits are essentially unlimited down south, and highly limited here.
Canadians must, however, remain vigilant. And in some areas, we need to not just honour the status quo, but move beyond it.
For instance, Canada's rules governing outside, third-party money in politics fall some distance short of adequate.
Loopholes concerning the targeting, amplification and promotion of online advertising and fake news, which the 2016 U.S. election showed can be a potent force in deciding outcomes, continue to exist. A recent Senate committee report called for fresh look at online ad rules, more stringent auditing requirements of third-party groups and criminal penalties for illegal outside interference.
Parliament is currently debating a pair of bills that would modify Canada's electoral law, and should find a way to incorporate those ideas. Inconsistent spending rules outside formal writ periods also remain a problem.
Some provinces, notably Ontario, have prolonged the period during which political advertising is subjected to both reporting requirements and spending limits. Others haven't.
Given the plethora of fixed-election laws in Canada, it would make sense to extend them further.
And some provinces, notably Ontario, have a long history of labour groups being able to fund multi-million dollar advertising campaigns targeting the Progressive Conservatives, with their donations and spending not subject to the limits that political parties, and their donors, must otherwise follow.
It's also worth noting that several monied interests in U.S. politics have links in Canada. Earlier this year the Conservatives held up what they believe is evidence that American resources were brought to bear on the 2015 federal election. The danger of outside financial influence – including by means of foreign governments offering free trips and other perks to MPs, Senators and other elected officials – is real.
Canadian politicians are confronted by, and succumb to, interest-group influence in a thousand small ways almost every day. But at least the gates by which money enters and influences Canadian politics are fewer when compared to the U.S., and in most cases more carefully watched.