Heavy Rain In The Forecast

The Super PACs are coming to an election contest near you, and they're bringing a lot of big numbers with lots of zeroes at the end, and anyone who's anyone in the 2012 cycle is making sure they have a direct pipeline into the green.

Super PACs are supposed to be free from any influence by the candidates or their campaigns. But as with Burton's own ties to the president, outside groups that back Texas Gov. Rick Perry, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann are stocked with people who have strong connections to the candidate.

There's little question that 2012 will reach a new height in campaign spending. Campaigns invariably become more expensive from one cycle to the next. The 2008 election cost $5.3 billion, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan campaign watchdog group. It could be close to $6 billion next year.

It's also worth noting that contribution limits remain unchanged for the candidates' own campaign committees: $2,500 per donor for the primary election and $2,500 for the general.

In contrast, super PACS and other related independent groups have become symbols of the new Wild West of political spending.

"Now (a donor) can go to a super PAC and write a check for literally any amount: $5,000, $50,000, $500,000," said Michael Beckel, a Center for Responsive Politics spokesman. "The sky's the limit."

It's the result of a Supreme Court decision last year, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The high court said that corporations, unions and others could spend unlimited amounts of money on ads that favored the election or defeat of candidates.

The FEC further tweaked the rules to require donor disclosure only when the contribution is earmarked for a specific ad.

So yes, Citizens United means unlimited, anonymous contributions.  Considering how close the Senate is to flipping over to GOP control (and of course all 435 seats in the House up for grabs in a post-redistricting election) you can bet that every national contest will involve one of more of these groups.

If you thought 2008 was bad, the next 13 months are going to be insanity multiplied by nauseating.  Personally I think it's going to take constant stories about the endless deluge of hundreds of millions (if not billions) in campaign cash before America decides to do something about it.  What I fear however is that Citizens United makes campaign finance laws a moot point right now.  There are some bright spots, namely that the subject of disclosure of donations in the new landscape is growing in popularity on the judicial side as a necessary balance.  Congressional Dems are pushing for an amendment to the Constitution, but that has no chance of getting anywhere either.

A combination of disclosure laws and outrage may make corporate players leery of massive donations to some candidates and on some issues, but the reality is we're going to have to live with at least one Presidential election under this ruling and possibly a large number more.  We'll see what kind of tsunami is unleashed by the SuperPACs and what the electorate feels like after the cash flood recedes.