Should we Worry about Super PACs?

Pin It Now!
Should we worry about the effects of super PACs on the election?  I think we all know that super PACs skew heavily towards one side of the political spectrum (certainly not ameliorating the phenomenon of heavy polarization among the electorate), and make a farce of the once rather legitimate principle of "one person one vote."
Citizens United opened the floodgates to campaign contributions.  The basis is rather odd though.  It's not as though contributions are "speech" pure and simple, but rather contributions are another form of influence buying.  I don't think anyone really believes that a contribution of $1 million won't buy you some favors, perhaps in terms of favorable laws in the future.  It seems that freedom of speech becomes used as justifications in and therefore entangled with numerous other things, such as commercial privileges and commercial speech.  Meanwhile, commercial speech has never been accorded inviolate status.
In any case, I'm sure the President will be able to weather the effects of super PACs in his campaign.  But the Congressional races are more worrisome.  A half a million donation in a Congressional race speaks loudly, and can potentially tilt the playing field towards the candidate with the most money.  And there's plenty of outside money in some high stakes elections.  You might query whether someone should be able to donate to a candidate in a district in which he or she has no vote.  There's a rule that prohibits any personnel at an investment advisory firm from making contributions to state pension fund officials if the personnel cannot vote for the official.  So, perhaps there is something insidious about making donations to candidates for whom one cannot vote.