One story line that developed after the election is that the concern over campaign finance was unwarranted. In the case of the GOP-leaning national political action committees ("super PACs"), the argument goes, the goal of capturing the presidency and a majority in the U.S. Senate was not achieved, demonstrating that money cannot actually buy elections.

This would be the wrong conclusion to draw. The landmark 2010 ruling by the nation’s high court that disabled many curbs on political spending by corpora- tions, wealthy individuals and organizations such as unions did, in fact, warp the 2012 political process, contributing to spending that surpassed the $1.5 billion mark.

Passing that shocking threshold demands counteraction at the state and federal levels to rebalance the influences that shape the workings of government.

Spending on these races had already skyrocketed by 2008, but it was the U.S. Supreme Court decision known as Citizens United that essentially pulled out all the stops. Limits on political advertising bought by individuals or corporate entities would be seen as an unconstitutional curb on free speech.

That meant a single billionaire like Sheldon Adelson steered the policy agenda by serially underwriting Republican campaigns — and even if the candidates didn’t win, it defined which issues (in this case, the alignment with Israel) were moved to the front burner. The whole notion of equitable access to government was turned on its head, fueling even more spending for counterattacks.

The bottom line is that if this is what it takes to run a campaign, our elected leaders will be hijacked by fundraising demands, taken away from doing what they were elected to do.

So far this has been primarily a blight on national politics. But some big money did roll into town through the U.S. Chamber of Commerce drive supporting the campaign of former Gov. Linda Lingle and in the Pacific Resource Partnership PAC ad campaign against the mayoral candidacy of another former governor, Ben Cayetano.

This is the impetus behind various movements to repair the damage caused by Citizens United, including proposals that would amend the U.S. Constitution to counter the high court decision. Locally, several resolutions have been passed , by the state Legislature favoring a constitutional amendment; in September, the Honolulu City Council passed another.

Nationally, these include efforts such as Amend 2012 (amend2012.org). This push by the nonprofit civics organization Common Cause opposes the notion that spending money on campaigns equates with speech and argues that corporations can’t claim free-speech rights as an individual person can.

Some critics worry that the amendment process is simply too long — passage by two-thirds of Congress, ratification by three-quarters of the states. And framing an amendment in this way could have unintended consequences, stripping away some needed protections in business-related contexts.

However, we agree with others who insist that such problems could be addressed by careful drafting of the new constitutional language. Pursuing a permanent fix to the abuse of free-speech rights would be a worthwhile effort of a national scale.

There are also less intrusive proposals. Last year, for example, a group of U.S. senators introduced a joint resolution, S.J. Res. 29, that would put in the U.S. Constitution a provision expressly allowing Congress and the states to regulate campaign spending. It went nowhere, but this may be an approach to follow.

Finally, it would be prudent to explore legislative avenues as well. Kent Greenfield, a corporate law scholar at Boston College, has argued that legislation to strengthen the hand of corporate stakeholders in corporate governance would help. Corporations would be more accountable to their constituencies in decisions to spend money in politics, and these fixes could take place at the state level.

With American campaign finance in its current chaotic state and in dire need of reform, an all-of-the-above strategy would be wise. The exact course toward the goal of more equitable access to government influence is still murky, but lawmakers at the state and federal levels need to begin the conversation. A democracy that can be bought for cash is no democracy at all.