It certainly doesn't have to for the average person. A study by the research firm Borrell Associates projects that election spending in 2012 will reach $9.8 billion for all federal, state and municipal elections. That's a lot of money but not relative to the more than $5-trillion-a-year U.S. economy or the $6.3 trillion all levels of government will spend in the 2012 fiscal year. In other words, it's an amount that can easily be handled by fiscal cuts elsewhere (one pig-in-the-poke weapon system, for example) or by very targeted tax increases.
Two of the suggested tax increases to cover this sum are actually highly popular in the polls. One would be a small tax on individual Wall St.speculative transactions in derivatives, commodities and other High Finance gambling forms. The other would be a minimal tax on the profits of all highly profitable corporations that now use loopholes to pay no taxes, such as General Electric, which paid no taxes in 2011 on profits of $14 billion.
One important additional note: Election costs would come down dramatically under a public system that included the requirement to give more free time on public airwaves to election debates. Moreover, a well-drafted Amendment that required Congress and the state legislatures to create a system of campaign financing providing equal sums to all competing candidates is more likely than not to lead to incumbents voting moderate sums for campaigns, rather than risk antagonizing voters to whom the incumbents would be far more answerable than at present. Right now voters come second to the money, and the game is to trick voters with massive spending on distorting ads while voting the way the campaign money wants - which seldomly turns out to be in the best interests of the general public. (Just consider the massive interest rates on your credit card as one example.)
Under a public system of campaign finance there would be less money available for misleading ads and a greater emphasis on free airtime debates, in which candidates could actually respond directly to distortions put forth by their opponents while discussing in more depth their positions and thinking.
If you look at who supports campaign finance reform, it's mostly the true grassroots organizations of all political stripes, right to left. If you look at who opposes reform, it is the so-called citizens groups who frequently act as fronts for corporations, as well as the corporations themselves, most major unions and special interest groups of all kind privileged by the current system, including the two major political parties. Power and control matter more to these entities and the people who run them than democracy and the will of the people - and certainly good public policy is a minor consideration to them when it conflicts with their privileges.