During last week’s New York debate, Senator Bernie Sanders was asked to name a specific instance in which former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sold out to her donors. This moment had a very obvious significance within the campaign. For the last few weeks, it has seemed like the Sanders campaign is built around calling Clinton corrupt, even going as far as to say to her, “I don’t think you are qualified if you get $15 million from Wall Street through your super PAC.”

This kind of pitch has become a staple in the 2016 presidential race. Donald Trump himself often brags that, due to his ability to self-finance his campaign, he is not influenced by lobbyists or special interests. When Sanders received the question, he seemed to struggle for a moment, before naming Clinton’s opposition to breaking up big banks as an example of corruption.

Accusations of corruption have become ever more common since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United ruling, which allows individuals to spend as much as they want on political advocacy, so long as it is not coordinated with campaigns. The Court argues well that the First Amendment cannot allow people to be fined or jailed for broadcasting political messages.

Unfortunately, ever since the Citizens United ruling, people outside the political mainstream have made the absurd claim that most politicians are being bribed by independently supported advertising. When Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal vetoed an anti-LGBT bill this month, right-wing extremists accused him of selling out to big business. When politicians advance non-populist economic policies like the Trans-Pacific Partnership, prominent left-wing outlets routinely accuse them of corruption. Populists like Trump and Sanders joyfully stoke these resentments, accusing their opponents of taking bribes and constantly implying that the only reason their craziest ideas are not passed is because of some evil corporations controlling things from the shadows.

The problem is, if a politician actually took unpopular positions to win the favor of Super PACs, they would very quickly lose any election in which they participated. Studies have shown that money is almost useless in affecting how people vote, a theory humorously titled the MEH, or “minimal-effects hypothesis.” This year’s campaign screams this truth: Jeb Bush was a historically capable fundraiser, raising ridiculous amounts of donations, whereas Donald Trump instead self-funds his campaign and does not seek to fundraise.

Look where that got them. This should make sense to anyone who stops to think about it: Is there any amount of Trump advertising that would persuade you to like the guy?

This is not to say that special interests are not a problem in the current political climate. Just about any special interest group — from the National Rifle Association to the National Organization for Women, Iowa farmers to teachers’ unions, Black Lives Matter to the American Family Association — exerts influence in our politics. However, they do so mostly through activism, endorsements and volunteerism, which studies show are much more effective than money in influencing votes.

Pointing at the opposition and calling them corrupt has become a way for populists to attack anyone who disagrees with them. Why is there opposition for a $15 minimum wage or a ban on Muslim immigration? According to proponents of these issues, it is evil CEOs or Hollywood executives in the shadows preventing these “brilliant” policies. This accusation is a way to avoid debate on the relative merits of populist proposals. It was particularly illuminating when Sanders called out Clinton for selling out by opposing breaking up banks. Clinton’s Wall Street regulations are considered to be more effective by experts, and even Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman has stated that they would be much more effective, albeit less cathartic and easy to understand. To people who do not follow economic policy, however, it’s very easy to sell the idea that this is instead some nefarious plot.

There is a case to be made that money has too much power in politics. Donations might elevate some ideas to greater prominence than their public support might merit. However, I doubt even a single member of Congress considers themselves to be bought by a corporation. If someone supports an anti-establishment candidate like Cruz, Sanders or Trump because they like their ideas, that’s fine. But people should stop buying into the rhetoric that anyone who opposes their platform is corrupt. That accusation is almost always wrong, and it breaks down debate before it even begins. We have had an annoyingly non-substantive campaign season, in good part due to these vague allegations of corruption. Let’s stop using this uninformed label to attack each other and instead argue the merits of each other’s ideas for a change.

Jose Trejos is a Weinberg freshman. He can be contacted at [email protected]. If you would like to respond publicly to this column, send a Letter to the Editor to [email protected].

The views expressed in this piece do not necessarily reflect the views of all staff members of The Daily Northwestern.