The 2008 presidential race marks the demise of the longstanding traditions and safety nets that guaranteed all presidential candidates an equal opportunity for victory.

Since the ’70s, most general campaign costs were paid for by a capped public tax fund that ensured relatively equal spending between candidates and a reasonable chance at victory for each. Although many reject public money during primaries because more money can be raised independently, in past years all general election candidates have accepted federal funding and agreed to limit private funding as a sign of good faith.

But last week, Hillary Clinton triggered an end to this practice by declaring her plans to have both the primaries and general election privately funded. Although the first to speak, she is not necessarily to blame for what will likely force less financially backed candidates off the ticket.

Others are anticipated to travel the same path. The New York Times reported the offices of candidates Edwards, Obama, McCain, Giuliani and Romney all either declared intent to waive public funding or refused to comment, suggesting it’s a strong possibility.

One incentive for private funding, suggested by The Times, is the close relationships of several candidates with hedge fund (typically high yielding, private investment funds) investors, some of who have access to billions from personal investments or via contacts with disposable cash and an agenda. The Times reported the Federal Election Commission expects the last two candidates alone will raise more than $500 million, more than $1 billion total, making this the most expensive election in history.

This poses a serious problem for those of us who typically root for the underdog. For example, the unlikely come-from-behind victory of former president Bill Clinton to win the primaries and defeat George Bush Sr. now becomes virtually impossible without amassed campaign contributions. Excessive campaigning tends to mean more wins and the aformentioned wealth backing the candidates will likely allow them to force out any candidate to win votes over time.

But before you grab the last quarters from your piggy bank to support your favorite hopeful, there’s more bad news. Many state legislatures are voting to change their primaries to as early as January. The push for earlier primaries is a welcomed gift for the big spenders because money equals exposure, and candidates with less funding will lose valuable time to strengthen credibility or rebound from defeat, thereby weakening their chances of winning.

The diminished checks and balances of the electoral system weaken the public’s influence on policy making, because when candidates are forced to put their hands into dirty pockets to win, they are more apt to grant personal favors than to serve the public. It’s difficult enough for third party candidates to compete and the new changes make it near impossible. This concerns all of us because they are the ones who turn new and local issues into national platforms.