If all speech is political speech, then politicians’ speech must be some sort of reactionary enigma. Sensationalized quotes by Donald Trump may have broken the news cycle in McCarthy-esque fashion, but the headlines churned out rippled further than expected — into the territory of his Republican competitors. Despite the polarizing effect his message has sent, some candidates have hopped on board.

Adopting a new iteration hard-lined stance on the police state, Trump claimed “99.9 percent” of officers are doing good work at a campaign stop in Nashville a couple weeks ago. In efforts to piggyback on Trump’s new “movement,” Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Republican Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin have also pointed fingers to reportage as crafting the police as scapegoats.

As candidates join in the fray, though, many senior Republican officials are wary of the result, the New York Times reported over the weekend.

The lure of fabricated language to marginalize growing demographics in this country, such as immigrants from Mexico, is serving to create an echo chamber in the political party to disseminate xenophobia for those who listen. However, the extent to which bigoted rhetoric can be analogous to “tough talk,” as CBS political editor Steve Chaggaris termed it, the persuasion of speech may not be as enticing as financial contributions when holistically viewing the election season.

The Times published rankings that Jeb Bush actually still tops the tables because of his campaign funding and national endorsements, despite Trump and Ben Carson, both without political backgrounds, most recently taking over the polls. Perhaps a shrewd business pedigree equates to political experience, however, given the exorbitant funds injected into elections in the past two decades.

Trump still leads both Iowa and New Hampshire polls, according that report, but his campaign pockets are dismally behind the likes of Bush or Cruz, who have raised $120 million and $52.5 million so far, respectively. Nevertheless, Trump’s predicted chances of being awarded the Republican nomination are slated in second place at 15 percent, behind Bush at 38 percent.

Flashy headlines may generate hype for a candidacy, particularly in the infant stages of an election, but money remains the tried-and-true indicator for winning the political nomination.

The 2012 presidential election cost approximately $2.6 billion alone, while the 2008 election totaled just under $2.8 billion, according to the Open Secret. The 2008 tilt doubled the campaign expenditure of the election just eight years prior. Average House of Representative and Senate winners in the 2012 election spent nearly $1.6 million and $11.5 million by their campaigns, and those numbers tripled since the 1990 election.

These biggest spenders almost always are victorious. According to PBS, 94 percent of the House candidates who spent the most money in the 2014 mid-term election campaigns won seats, while 82 percent of those who spent the most in their Senate races were elected. Whether this is a result of donors “picking the fastest horse” or evidence that our elections can be bought is up for debate.

Here’s a euphemism for an adage: Money talks, “tough talk” walks. Trump blowing up the media through his sensationalized rhetoric may reshape the political realm — and its effectiveness may hold weight in further elections (Kanye West has already announced a 2020 campaign). This is further evidenced by the likes of Cruz and Walker appropriating such techniques. For this election season, however, the influence of money cannot be separated from political success.