NEW YORK — Money talks in U.S. politics, and there is more of it talking this year than ever before in congressional elections.

The non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics predicts that, by the end of the year, candidates, parties and outside groups will have raised $2.6 billion for the Nov. 7 elections, 18% more than in 2002.

Federal Election Commission figures show that as of Sept. 30 congressional candidates alone had raised $1.18 billion, up almost 15% from $1.03 billion in 2004.

The FEC figure is more than 15 times what the five major German parties spent on parliamentary elections last year and more than six times what it cost Mexican taxpayers this year to elect not just the legislature but also the president.

But, Republicans and Democrats, which raise almost all those funds, see good in the high-cost U.S. system: Money enables candidates to communicate with voters and parties to organize efforts to get out the vote. They worry when they see unfair advantage for the other side.

Even many academics and non-partisan watchdog groups say the large sums spent on U.S. elections are not a problem in themselves. They say the system largely addresses the real concerns — protecting free speech and preventing or punishing corruption — though it does less well at opening competition for office to a wide range of people.

Campaign financing is a constitutional question in the United States because the Supreme Court sees it as a free speech issue, said John Samples of the Cato Institute, a Washington think tank. The court has allowed restrictions only to prevent corruption and to require disclosure so that voters can tell who gave what to whom.

"The core thing here is really corruption," said Samples, whose book The Fallacy of Campaign Finance Reform has just been published. The court also has said there should be no limit on what candidates can spend on their own campaigns, on the assumption they cannot corrupt themselves.

Campaign money may not be a bigger problem here than in countries that spend less, said Fred Wertheimer, founder of the non-partisan organization Democracy 21.

"The potential for money to have undue influence over government decisions exists in almost every political election system," he said. "The problems with our system don't have to do with the amount of money spent; they have to do with the sources."

Congress voted in 2002 for changes in campaign finanace regulations that outlaw direct contributions from corporations and labor unions to candidates or political parties. Now, corporations and unions can set up political action committees that contribute to campaigns, but the donations can come only from individuals.

Wertheimer said the changes have worked well. He also said public financing of presidential races, in place since 1976, needs some revision, but the model should be extended to congressional races. That, he admitted, would mean Senators and Representatives voting for a law that could increase funds for their own challengers.

Others are less enthused about the 2002 campaign finance law. Nelson Polsby, a political science professor at the University of California at Berkeley, said the changes have been "quite ineffective" because they seek to control something that may be impossible to police.

Regulations that curtail political free speech, through donations and campaign spending, could create a system in which only the famous or wealthy have a good shot at winning office, he said.

Polsby recommends focusing on the other end — the prospects for challengers.

"Who has more money is not the most important thing. More important is whether the candidate who has less has enough" to compete, Polsby said.

Critics of the current system cite the fact that about 98% of incumbents who run for re-election win. Polsby says there is still substantial turnover, between 10 and 20%, because officials move up, retire or die.

Americans should be looking to create ways for more people to compete for office, says Rob Richie, executive director of FairVote, a non-partisan group that develops ideas on electoral reform. Too often, the big money in U.S. elections is used to scare off competitors even within a party, he said.

And the enormous sums spent in U.S. elections tend to chase just a small fraction of the voters — the few who might change their minds or might otherwise not vote, he added.

Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, also sees money as an obstacle to new challengers. For example, in 2004, candidates for the House of Representatives who raised less than $1 million had almost no chance of winning, he said, while the average successful Senate campaign cost $7 million.

Still, there are virtues to the present system, primarily in the requirement that every campaign contribution of $200 or more must be recorded publicly.

"There aren't many countries in the world that have a disclosure system like we do," he said. "For the most part, voters can figure out who is paying for the elections."

The big money behind U.S. elections is not a bad thing, said Republican National Committee spokesman Josh Holmes.

"Money is always a factor in the ability of candidates to get their message to the voters," Holmes said. Fundraising success has enabled the party to create a database of Republican voters in each district.

What troubles Republicans, Holmes said, is unregulated spending by interest groups, which he says favors Democratic causes. Though the money cannot go directly to election campaigns, the groups can impact the vote by pressing certain issues.

At the Democratic National Committee, spokeswoman Karen Finney said Republicans have long had an advantage over Democrats in campaign fundraising.

"But this cycle, we've done very well. We're closing the gap," she said.

Democrats raised enough to begin building voter databases and organizing staff a year ahead, Finney said. She sees that as crucial to one of the changes in this year's elections: the number of competitive races usually declines as election day approaches, but this year it is rising.