The upcoming senatorial contest between Law School Professor Elizabeth Warren and incumbent Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown is slated to be one of the most high-profile elections of 2012. The contested seat was held by the late Senator Ted Kennedy ’56 for almost five decades. Its Republican occupancy has been both a point of immense pride for the regional GOP and a thorn in the side of Massachusetts Democrats. Furthermore, Brown’s high level of Wall Street support and Warren’s decidedly anti-corporate message have propelled the contest to center-stage nationally.

The election’s highprofile nature has led to predictions that it will be seriously affected by super PACs, third-party organizations bankrolled largely by wealthy donors with no restrictions on spending. As a result, the Brown and Warren campaigns have engaged in talks with the intention of limiting super PAC spending in support of their candidacies.  The discussions have faltered because the campaigns could not agree on a reliable set of punishments to deter breaches of the agreement. Experts have speculated that it will be difficult for candidates’ campaigns to control the activities of groups that they are legally forbidden from coordinating with in the first place, suggesting that their attempts to do so are meaningless political posturing. Despite these challenges, the goal of undermining super PACs is a good one. Although the roadblocks are many, experts, candidates, and legislators ought to continue to find ways to prevent super PACS from harming the electoral process.

There was certainly no dearth of political advertisement prior to the recent advent of super PACs. Quite to the contrary, the detrimental effect of money in politics motivated legislators to enact campaign finance reform at various points throughout the past sixty years. Furthermore, it seems highly unlikely that anyone prior to the birth of the super PAC felt the rich had unduly small influence on government. Unfortunately, rather than empower voters to select their candidates more wisely, the influx of advertising from super PACs is likely to create campaign inflation, raising the minimum amount of cash support with which it is possible to wage a campaign and giving a leg up to any candidate with rich friends. Such an arms race will not add any value to the political process.

This inflation will further render insignificant the kind of small individual contributions that are at the heart of grassroots fundraising. If a single billionaire can, as we’ve seen with the Gingrich campaign, keep a politician in a race that he otherwise would have been forced to leave, then an average person’s $20 contribution is rendered virtually meaningless. Groups and individuals ought to be able to financially support candidacies they believe in, but a small group of plutocrats should not be allowed to commandeer the helm of our democracy.

In addition to the super PAC’s ability to hand disproportionate political influence to the extremely wealthy, the complete saturation of the media market around election time is likely to leave an even greater portion of the electorate frustrated with the democratic process. Should the Brown and Warren campaigns be unable to successfully limit third-party spending, it’s likely that political ads will dominate local airwaves to a far greater extent than we’ve seen in recent years. Election season should be a time for excitement and passion, not annoyance and frustration.

Regardless of whether Warren and Brown’s attempt to limit the influence of super PACs was motivated by public relations concerns or genuine worry for the state of our democracy, we hope to see more serious attempts of this nature in the future. The only people who stand to gain from super PACs are the extremely wealthy and unpopular politicians with rich friends.