It's official: Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich has defeated convicted felon and long-time Senator Ted Stevens for Alaska's other Senate seat, making him the next Junior Senator from Alaska.

Politico shared this.

With this victory, Democrat Mark Begich has defeated one of the giants in the U.S. Senate by a 3,724-vote margin, a stunning end to a 40-year Senate career marred by Stevens' conviction on corruption charges a week before the election.

A real victory in the fight towards ending corruption in Congress! Thank you good people of Alaska.

Amidst all of the energy and fervor around the 2008 elections, one thing remained the same: money wins elections. Once again, the candidates with the most money were able to take home victory in not just the Presidential race (Obama outspent McCain two-to-one) but in Senate and Congressional races around the country. The Center for Responsible Politics released numbers last week demonstrating that no matter how much enthusiasm a candidate might have, it all comes down to money in the end.

As CRP's Executive Director Sheila Krumholz revealed, in 9 out of 10 contests the best-funded candidates won their races. This matches a trend that is familiar to those tracking the connection between money and politics:

Continuing a trend seen election cycle after election cycle, the biggest spender was victorious in 397 of 426 decided House races and 30 of 32 settled Senate races. On Election Day 2006, top spenders won 94 percent of House races and 73 percent of Senate races. In 2004, 98 percent of House seats went to the biggest spender, as did 88 percent of Senate seats.

Despite Congressional approval ratings dangling in the single digits, 95% of House incumbents won re-election and 93% of Senate incumbents were welcomed back by voters. How did they do it? Money.

These financial shackles that require massive amounts of money just to mount a viable candidacy for the House or Senate are dangerous in two ways:

(1) it keeps out regular Americans from ever being able to run for office because they can't raise enough money to stay competitive.

(2) it in debts winning candidates to their benefactors. As Krumholz says, "The politicians who were just elected potentially owe their campaign contributors billions of dollars for helping them win." How they repay them is part of the problem.

Here are some figures to chew on:

- average cost of winning a House seat in 2008: $1.1 million

- average cost of winning a Senate seat in 2008: $6.5 million.

- 1 in 4: number of House seats where incumbent faced no financial opposition.

- CRP's estimated total cost of U.S. elections this year: $5.3 billion making it the most expensive election in American history.

- 93%: House races where top-spender won.

- 94%: Senate races where top-spender won.

My first reaction to this was, "What could we fund with $5.3 billion?" Healthcare? A more efficient and stringent regulatory system? Education? But then I realized, Johnson & Johnson spent $5.1 billion on selling the world soaps, shampoos and toothpastes in just the third quarter of 2008. McDonald's spent more than $689 million selling the world hamburgers and french fries in 2006. And Proctor and Gamble spent over $7.9 billion selling the world laundry detergent, Pampers, batteries and Pringles. After seeing those numbers, am I really that upset that we spend $5 billion "selling" tomorrow's democracy to the people? I don't know.

Do you feel we spend too much on electing our leaders or not enough?

Nate Silver over at FiveThirtyEight believes that the remaining votes to be counted in the Begich-Stevens Alaska Senate race will favor Begich. The former Democratic mayor of Anchorage remains 3,500 votes behind newly convicted felon Ted Stevens and may end up passing him with the remaining early voting ballots yet to be counted. And there's no reason not to trust Nate's analysis -- his prediction for an Obama victory was dead on.

If you want to help get him out, checkout our petition, "Thanks for the memories, Ted Stevens."

Both Presidential candidates called on Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) to step down today in the wake of the senator's guilty verdict in federal court yesterday. Here are the statements:

From Obama:

"It's time to put an end to the corruption and influence-peddling, restore openness and accountability, and finally put government back in the hands of the people it serves. Senator Stevens should step down."

And from McCain:

"It is clear that Senator Stevens has broken his trust with the people and that he should now step down. I hope that my colleagues in the Senate will be spurred by these events to redouble their efforts to end this kind of corruption once and for all."

Also, from Governor Palin:

"After being found guilty on seven felony counts, I had hoped Senator Stevens would take the opportunity to do the statesman-like thing and erase the cloud that is covering his Senate seat. He has not done so," she said in a statement released afterward. "Alaskans are grateful for his decades of public service but the time has come for him to step aside. Even if elected on Tuesday, Senator Stevens should step aside to allow a special election to give Alaskans a real choice of who will serve them in Congress."

Based on Stevens' public comments, it seems like he'll stay in the race. Under current law, if he wins re-election on Tuesday he is not required to step down and instead must be removed by a full Senate vote on recommendation by the ethics committee (currently chaired by Senators Barbara Boxer John Cornyn). Regardless, a jury of his peers decided that he was guilty on all seven counts and its time for him move on. As both presidential candidates pointed out in their statements, the trust has been broken.

It's time for a fresh start. It's time for change.