Episode 2 'Wealth of the Wicked' examines the history of campaign finance in the United States from the 1975 Federal Election Commission (FEC) through the Citizens United Supreme Court decision. It highlights how super PACs, religious groups, and special interests influence politics and courts through donations, including controversial support for figures like Donald Trump despite moral contradictions. The episode also touches on the role of conservative judges accepting benefits from big donors and the impact of these financial influences on political and judicial outcomes.

The episode features various participants including journalists like Jane Mayer, former Ohio Supreme Court Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor, former FBI agent Jeffrey Williams, former Republican campaign manager Tyler Fehrman, assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Glatfelter, and former U.S. Attorney David M. Devillers. These individuals provide insight into the political corruption and campaign finance issues explored in the episode, particularly focusing on Ohio's political landscape and a major public corruption case involving a secret $61 million slush fund.

The episode highlights a major public corruption case in Ohio involving a powerful political lobbyist found dead in an apparent suicide. Federal investigators uncovered a conspiracy involving a secret $61 million slush fund used by Ohio’s Speaker of the House to secure political power and repay corporate donors with a billion-dollar corporate bailout at the expense of taxpayers. FBI wiretap recordings play a key role in unraveling this conspiracy.

The episode portrays dark money as a pervasive and corrupting force in American politics, showing that 90% of elections are won by the candidate who spends the most money. It reveals how untraceable money from wealthy individuals and corporations flows through partisan organizations and super PACs to influence elections and government decisions. The documentary emphasizes the ethical and legal challenges posed by unchecked campaign financing and the difficulty in stopping money from buying elections.

Some criticisms include the episode's perceived political bias, with some viewers labeling it as leftist propaganda. There is also mention of the documentary flirting with anti-Catholic sentiment when discussing the religious affiliations of conservative judges. Additionally, some argue that the episode oversimplifies judicial decisions like the overturning of Roe v. Wade by attributing them mainly to financial influence rather than ideological beliefs. The documentary is noted for focusing more on the influence of money rather than the full complexity of political and judicial dynamics.