Partnered with the Center for Public Integrity, BBC conducts a two-part investigation on the nuts and bolts of our lovely campaign finance system. Interviewing well-known names from all over the political spectrum, the first part mainly takes issue with outside groups, commonly referred to as 527s, that have become shorthand for the latest debates over the influence of money in elections.

Remember Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, John Kerry’s worst nightmare in 2004? Though these groups are technically not allowed to be connected to campaigns, the messages they spread can contain biases that favor one party or the other. It was obvious whose campaign Swift Boat ended up helping.

It gets more complicated actually. When BBC’s Steve Evans learned that the lawyer for the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and for the Bush-Cheney campaign in 2000 and 2004 was one and the same man, a charming bloke by the name of Ben Ginsburg, his first question for Mr. Ginsburg was: how is this legal?

His answer: "There was not a direct link… I didn't deal with the messages and I was very careful to make sure there was no co-ordination between the two in terms of their messages and activities." Right.

The reality is no federal law exists to regulate the spending limits of outside groups. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill had the unintended consequence of pushing money elsewhere. As a Center for Public Integrity spokesman carefully noted, “Money is like water; it follows the cracks.” And right now a lot of money is going towards the 527s, turning them into another loophole in our broken campaign finance system.

When questioned about the legitimacy of such a system, Mr. Ginsburg accredits American democracy for allowing people “to discuss their views outside the political campaigns.” He calls it a “market place of ideas.”

Others seem to agree, calling uncharted spending by outside groups a sign of robust competition. One man, whose name I unfortunately did not catch, adds a bit more humor to it: “Americans spent 4 billion on potato chips last year, shouldn’t an elected president be worth at least that much?” Mr. Potato Head obviously would not be a big fan of public financing; he actually argues for raising the limits of what presidential candidates can raise in the primaries. “It’s not too much, but too little,” he says.

BBC’s conclusion will not come as a shock to most of us: Money might not necessarily buy your way to the White House, but it certainly gets you one foot in the front door.