Yesterday, Noah Rothman rightly highlighted how Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has exhibited “conspicuous deference bordering on fealty” toward Russia, a country which has not only taken an increasingly aggressive posture toward the United States and its European allies but has also seemingly sought to subvert the American electoral process. If Russia is behind the hacking of the Democratic National Committee, Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, and other prominent officials like former Secretary of State Colin Powell with the purpose of undercutting one candidate and privileging the other, then its actions are unprecedented. Never before has a country—ally or adversary—sought so blatantly and directly to undermine the integrity of American elections.

But, what makes Russia’s apparent actions so disturbing is that it hasn’t just bet on one horse. The Kremlin has managed to compromise every candidate or campaign. Put aside Clinton’s “reset policy” with Russia as just poor judgment and analysis: many presidents and secretaries of state enter office assuming the failure of diplomacy has more to do with predecessors than adversaries. The problem is more with her surrogates.

As reported here, Ellen Tauscher, a former member of Congress and undersecretary for arms control during Clinton’s State Department tenure, subsequently headed a program at the Atlantic Council, which was funded in part by the Kremlin (through a think tank started and funded by the Russian government). Despite such poor judgment and a willingness to accept Kremlin funding, Clinton still relies on Tauscher as a surrogate. Presumably, Tauscher is angling for a position in the Clinton administration above that which she held last time she worked for Clinton. She might not have been compromised by the Russians to the extent former Trump advisor Paul Manafort apparently was, but her partnership with a Kremlin-funded think tank suggests poor judgment, at best. At worst, it reveals a willingness to provide Russian President Vladimir Putin’s regime an opening to impact the U.S. policy debate in exchange for funding.

Then, there’s Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate for president and a darling of some progressives and the far left. Stein traveled to Moscow to speak on a panel celebrating RT, the propaganda wing of Putin’s empire (Trump surrogate General Michael Flynn also attended). She subsequently dined with Putin and tweeted out the desire to have Putin’s television station sponsor debates.

There’s no evidence that the Kremlin has paid Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson or his surrogates, nor has Johnson accepted Putin’s largesse the way Stein and Trump surrogates have. Nevertheless, Johnson has been a frequent contributor to RT, for example, blessing Putin’s invasion and annexation of the Crimea in 2014.

We’re still six weeks away from the presidential elections and, according to pundits across the political spectrum, it’s still a toss-up. That’s not quite true, though. Whether because of corruption, greed, naiveté, or simply a confluence of belief, all candidates seem to be to some extent in Putin’s pocket in a way that would be so scandalous as to force firings or resignations in election cycles past. Therefore, perhaps the 2016 election can be called: We don’t know who will take the oath of office next January, but it already appears that Vladimir Putin is the winner.