According to the New York Times, a mere 158 families contributed nearly half of the money shelled out during the early part of campaigns. That’s 158 families out of the roughly 120 MILLION in the United States. And while the United States is a melting pot where millennials, women and people of color have an increasing influence when it comes to the presidential election, these contributors tend to have a few traits in common: white, rich, older and male.

So how is it that less than a tenth of 1 percent of the US population can have such a profound influence on the election? It’s because of the 'Citizens United' Supreme Court case. In 2010, the Supreme Court made a ruling that allowed corporations to spend an unlimited amount of money on ads and other political tools that advocate for or against candidates in an election. While this at first may not seem like a huge deal, this ruling completely changed who holds power in the campaign process as now the super rich can give money to super PACs behind the face of their corporations.

This allows the ultra-wealthy to contribute as much money as they want to super PACs that will then use those funds to either bring down candidates or advocate for them. The problem is though that these families aren’t split evenly among the political parties. The New York Times reports that out of these 158 families, 138 are backing Republican candidates. And this isn’t a coincidence.

Republicans are known for their tax breaks for the wealthy to encourage entrepreneurship and believe this will help the general population through trickle-down economics. So it’s not that the wealthy families who are throwing around money in the campaign want these candidates who will promote less government interference in the economy.

“It’s a lot of families around the country who are self-made who feel like over-regulation puts these burdens on smaller companies,” Doug Deason, a Dallas investor who supported Rick Perry, told the New York Times regarding the types of families funding these super PACS. The issue is, these 138 right-leaning families don’t reflect the general slightly more left American public.

“The campaign finance system is now a countervailing force to the way the actual voters of the country are evolving and the policies they want,” Ruy Teixeira, a political and demographic expert, told the New York Times. And this hasn’t gone unnoticed by voters themselves.

In early April, a week-long sit-in called “Democracy Spring” took place in Washington, D.C. where thousands gathered to peacefully protest corrupt money in politics. The sit-in was a unifying event that brought individuals together regardless of party allegiances, as the issue is rampant within both the Democrat and Republican Parties.

Many were also outspoken about the party nomination system that includes superdelegates and the mass impact this has on who will win the Democratic nomination. Actress Rosario Dawson, an avid Bernie Sanders supporter, spoke out as well.

“We’re putting ourselves on the line for what a lot of people across America and across the planet really want to be able to see happen in America, which is one person one vote,” Dawson told the Huffington Post. At this moment, Clinton has about an 800-delegate lead over Sanders. But, when broken down between pledged delegates (won from states) and superdelegates (votes from Congress members, past presidents, etc.), the impact is immediately apparent.

Without her superdelegates, Clinton only has a 300-delegate lead, something much more feasible to overcome than 800. Sanders could even end up winning more pledged delegates from the states, but with Clinton’s 519 superdelegates, he would still lose the nomination. If this country is a true democracy, shouldn’t whoever wins the vote win the nomination? And with the Citizens United ruling still in place and the intra-party nomination system, the question you need to ask yourself is: does my vote even matter?