Earlier this month, the New York Times reported that spending for TV political advertisements is on track to hit $3 billion by Nov. 2. This breaks the record previously held by the two former election cycles, $2.7 billion in 2008 and $2.4 billion in 2006.

Even with these obscene amounts of money, the ads have yet to entice me to think critically or even make me chuckle. They are simply unending torrents of negative commentary that voice-over the same sound bites again and again.

Perhaps all the intelligent people with marketing degrees are making ads for pizza or insurance commercials. But really? Why waste so much money on bad ads?

I recognize the place of political advertisements in the election cycle. They are supposed to educate voters and allow for an honest comparison of a candidate’s potential to serve in public office. However, the advertisements I have seen so far this year, and in past years, do not allow me to make an honest comparison. And why is this?

I don’t know by whom, specifically, the ads are funded. I don’t know where they get their information. I don’t know if what they’re saying is true. I don’t know if it’s taken out of context. I just don’t know. How can I be expected to make an intelligent, informed decision from smear campaigns? And am I impressed with the politician sponsoring the ad? Definitely not.

Researchers from the E.W. Scripps School of Journalism found that more than half of participants in a study react negatively to both the target of a negative political ad and the source of the ad, according to an article in the Web Journal of Mass Communication Research.

So why continue? Because enough people are sucked in to make it effective.

Last year’s Supreme Court decision in the Citizens United case is one of the major factors in this year’s swelling advertisement budget. The decision, approved by a narrow 5-4 margin, blurred the lines between corporate and individual contributions in political campaigns. It also struck down part of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance law that prohibits ads funded by corporations and unions from running in the final days of a political campaign.

The Supreme Court did uphold some disclosure provisions that will require nonprofit groups to disclose all contributions to political candidates. Hopefully this will nudge federal and state legislatures to enact more strict disclosure reforms. Americans have a right to know who is paying for the information displayed on their TV screen.

At the heart of the Supreme Court decision are some serious questions about the First Amendment. Does money fall under the definition of speech? Are corporations to be treated like individuals?

Any campaign finance law will be an imperfect answer to these questions, but an important first step is disclosure. Knowledge of where the money is coming from will help to ensure a fair competition in a democratic society. Once this first step is accomplished, perhaps then we can look forward to more perfectly answering the questions of campaign finance.

Don’t be sucked in by the sound bites. Demand a fair and honest debate. Start by demanding disclosure.