At the end of the costliest presidential election campaign in American history – $1.2 billion was spent all told – our own instinct is that it was cheap at the price. Throughout the long fight over McCain-Feingold and other efforts to regulate campaign speech, we have been saying that money is speech and we need more of it in our elections. That candidates have to go out and raise money puts them in touch with the people, gives people, rich and poor, a way to participate. Funds go to craft and to sharpen messages.

As expensive as the campaign was, its cost still fell considerably short of the annual worldwide marketing budget of a vast corporation such as Coca-Cola, which last year spent $1.75 billion. Even so, did the donors enjoy a good return on their money? Total expenditures on behalf of Senator Kerry by 527s easily outstripped those of President Bush. This was exemplified by Peter Lewis and George Soros, the moguls who pledged $10 million apiece to the “America Coming Together” to register more voters to eject the incumbent. We disagree with them profoundly, but they enriched this campaign and called forth a magnificent response from the Republican side, particularly the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth.

In most congressional races, a funding lead proved to be an advantage for the incumbent. Yet the more high-profile the race, the less money mattered. Senator Daschle, the Democratic minority leader, was vanquished despite a fund-raising lead over his Republican challenger. Nor could a superior campaign chest salvage a longtime Democratic incumbent, Rep. Martin Frost of Texas, who had been redistricted into a new area with a Republican congressman.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 21 House and Senate candidates spent more than a $1 million apiece of their own money, not always with success. Had money been the magic potion, Erskine Bowles would today be senator-elect from North Carolina. That money wasn’t dispositive proves that while it provides the ability for a robust argument to be made, it’s the substance of the argument that eventually matters most. So mark us down as among those who feel that for all the money spent, the election was well worth it.