All these articles and all of the left wing media's hand-wringing about Super-PACs. "They are buying elections!" "Money is ruining elections!" "The 1% are buying our future!" "The sky is falling!" "Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhh!!!!!!!!!!" Unless I woke up in another dimension, votes from actual people count. Unless things have drastically changed, the Super-PAC money doesn't go to voters in return for some kind of guarantee that they will vote a certain way. Is the left just saying stupid shit in preparation for what they will push on us if obama loses? If they lose the Senate and the White House will they try to claim it was because the 1% or the EEEEEEEEEVILL corporations bought the election? I guarantee you that if Super-PACs were contributing more to obama than to Romney, the left would consider it the best and most fair thing to ever happen to elections. So what if they are spending a bajillion dollars on attack ads? It isn't as if obama only had a dollar to his name and couldn't afford to buy attack ads. In fact, ads attacking Romney is practically all I've seen so far. The sheer number of attack ads against Romney make ads against obama appear as rare as a Lindsey Lohan appearance in AA meetings, as scarce as a pair of flats in Ryan Seacrest's shoe rack. Um....sorry, channeling Dennis Miller for a minute there. Anyway, if your point is the question of whether politicians are then beholden to those corporations and special interest groups after they win well, if you believe that they aren't beholden to them already, you are more out of touch with reality than Gary Busey on heroin.