In 2000, Jon Corzine spent tens of millions of his personal fortune to vault himself from political obscurity to the United States Senate. In 2005, he spent millions more to jump from Washington to Trenton and become New Jersey's governor. This year he's opening his wallet again as he looks to overcome a steep deficit in the polls to win re-election, in what could be the ultimate test of whether money trumps all in politics today.

Throughout American history, personal wealth has often played a significant role in winning political office. But as campaigns are increasingly decided by 30-second TV ads and sophisticated get-out-the-vote efforts, the two major parties are increasingly looking to recruit individuals with personal fortunes that can help bankroll campaign costs that now more often than not run into the tens of millions of dollars.

In Depth: 10 Candidates Who Spent Giant Sums of Their Personal Wealth on Campaigning

Look just across the Hudson River from the Garden State to New York City. Before the city's term limit law was changed a host of Democrats were lining up to try and win back City Hall for the first time since 1993. But once billionaire Mike Bloomberg became eligible to seek a third term, the field shrank appreciably.

"The sad truth for a political candidate without deep pockets is that while money isn't the only thing, it does matter," U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner (D) wrote in the New York Times this May as he officially announced he would not make an expected run for the office. The prospect of Bloomberg spending up to $80 million means "regular debates about real issues will probably take a back seat to advertising."

In states like New York and California, money is often a major determinant of who can run in the first place. Former eBay executive Meg Whitman has already contributed $4 million of her own money to her gubernatorial bid in the Golden State; just four years ago, Steve Westly, also an eBay executive, spent nearly ten times that in a failed bid for the Democratic nomination. Fifteen years ago, Michael Huffington spent $26 million in the state on a Senate campaign.

At the federal level, the Supreme Court has upheld the right of wealthy individuals to contribute unlimited sums to their own campaigns, cementing the U.S. Senate in particular as a millionaires' club. In fact, as the parties have sought to offset the traditional advantage of incumbency, they are increasingly targeting as recruits those who can subsidize their own campaigns. In 2006 alone, Republicans fielded millionaire candidates in Nebraska, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia, as Democrats did in Arizona and Connecticut.

But every one of those candidates lost, showing ultimately that money can buy you onto the track, but not put you over the finish line. That lesson also applies to the ultimate prize in politics: the White House. Ross Perot once led a three-way race in 1992, but finished without a single electoral vote after spending $60 million. Steve Forbes could not win the Republican nomination in 1996 or 2000 despite spending nearly $40 million on each campaign; Mitt Romney eclipsed his spending mark in 2008, but still fell to John McCain.

In 2004, it was Barack Obama who was the cash-strapped candidate running against a multimillionaire opponent. Obama won the Democratic nomination for Illinois Senate when Blair Hull's campaign imploded, despite the $28.6 million he spent on the race. Obama's presidential campaign, infused with low-dollar Internet contributions four years later, ultimately may prove to be the model for other candidates looking to keep pace with the seemingly endless parade of millionaires chasing political office.

In Depth: 10 Candidates Who Spent Giant Sums of Their Personal Wealth on Campaigning

In Depth: America's Top 10 Freest and Least Free States

In Depth: History's Top 10 Most Corrupt Politicians