The free flow of money into the presidential election via super PACs has had a different effect than perhaps opponents of Citizens United anticipated.

Sure, the super PACs have given front-runner Mitt Romney a vast war chest, but being the main guy for the Republican establishment he would have had deeper pockets anyway. There is only so much that wall-to-wall TV advertisements can really give a guy.

What funding from super PACs has done in the 2012 presidential campaign is to keep the other candidates around longer. Santorum probably would have been done after New Hampshire, South Carolina or Florida. Gingrich could have been out after lousy showings in Iowa, Florida or even last week in Minnesota.

At this point in 2008, the Democrats were down to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and John McCain was already the presumptive GOP nominee.

Some say Romney’s money worked in Florida, but what really worked was his message. He reminded voters of Gingrich’s ethics violations.

So it could be argued that super PACs are good for democracy because they make it so states other than Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina matter in the nominating process. Who didn’t think the Minnesota GOP caucuses were much more important than four years ago?

That point made, we still don’t buy the Citizens United idea that money is speech. Firstly, if it were, bribery would be legal. Secondly, the Constitution clearly allows the regulation of commerce — i.e. the exchange of money.

To us, the worst aspect of the Citizens United ruling is treating corporations like individual people. America is supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people. The Constitution’s preamble states, “We, the people.”

And the worst aspect of the Super PACs is not so much the amount of money that they can take in and spend — often fruitlessly — but the lack of sunshine in knowing who is giving to what super PAC. Secrecy is never good for the democratic process.

Visit publicmarkup.org/bill/superpac-act/ to read a proposed bill to require disclosure when donating to a super PAC. Disclosure is required for so many other aspects of local, state and federal elections. It ought to be for super PACs, too. The people still have a right to know.

Perhaps more funding in campaigns can be better for democracy. Voters in primaries get some choices. Party conventions might be relevant again. But political donating needs to be done above board. As it stands, it needs fixing.