In truth, not just anyone can be elected a governor in this country. The reality of American political culture dictates sufficient funds are necessary to carry out a successful campaign, which establishes the framework for public support and eventual election into office. The success or failure of any run for office is heavily dependent upon campaign funds. Due to this, money and power are often considered to be codependent in the realm of politics.

There is certainly a great deal of truth in this notion, particularly in light of the recent media coverage on Gov. Scott Walker’s out-of-state campaign contributions. Walker has raised $12.1 million since the beginning of last year, with roughly $4.6 million of that total coming in during the most recent reporting period of Dec. 11 to Jan. 17.

To put this in perspective, the Democratic Party of Wisconsin raised only $394,000 during the same period, less than nine percent of Walker’s total. Reports indicate this is the most ever raised by a candidate running for state office in Wisconsin.

In terms of out-of-state contributions, of the $2.4 million collected during this year alone, $1.6 million came from out-of-state donors. That equates to a staggering 66 percent of this year’s donations.

In addition, Walker received roughly $1 million from just four out-of-state donors between Jan. 13 and Jan. 17 of this year. This trend is likely to continue because of a state law allowing officials targeted for recall to raise unlimited funds until the date of the recall election is established.

The prevalence of Walker’s out-of-state donations is undoubtedly concerning. When out-of-state residents become involved in another state’s election, it is reasonable to assume these individuals believe they have something to gain by supporting a candidate through campaign contributions. Without some sort of perceived benefit, there would no incentive for these donors to lend support. In this case, what do these out-of-state residents have to gain by investing their money in Walker’s campaign?

It is clear that Walker’s focus on supporting corporations could serve to benefit these donors via the diffusion of in-state corporate prosperity beyond state borders. But legislation aimed at economic and corporate revitalization is only a part of the framework on which Walker has built his political agenda.

It will not be the out-of-state donors coping with the reality of this less than ideal framework, but rather the people of Wisconsin. Specifically, it will be many of the individuals that have been hit hardest by Walker’s pro-corporate and anti-union policies, and far too many of these people are not in any position to lend monetary support to any candidate that runs against Walker in a recall election.

By allowing out-of-state donations to an in-state election, particularly one as significant as the upcoming recall election, the citizens of Wisconsin are arguably allowing out-of-state residents to help determine their future. One only needs to walk through downtown Madison to see the support for the Recall Walker movement, but with the threat posed by Gov. Walker’s increasing campaign funds, it is clear that activism alone will not be enough to win this election.

Although activism has tipped the scale in many political movements throughout history, it is uncertain whether it will be the ultimate game-changer in this one. Money is consistently the single most powerful weapon in contemporary politics, and it is clear that Walker’s arsenal is stocked to battle whatever the upcoming recall election holds in store.

This is the troubling reality of politics in this country, and by continuing to allow out-of-state donors to influence the outcomes of our elections, Wisconsin is essentially undermining the power of its constituents. When 66 percent of Walker’s 2012 campaign contributions come from out-of-state donors, those donors are having a significant voice in Wisconsin’s future. It is time to put the power to determine the state’s future back in the hands of the Wisconsin citizens.