If money will flow, let it go to the parties

President Obama's recent endorsement of a Democratic "super PAC" -- Priorities USA -- to support his reelection campaign makes one thing clear: Money will dominate this year's election like no other in history. Already, Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Mitt Romney, has hauled in over $17 million from just 60 donors.

Big money has always played a role in politics, but the advent of super PACs means that America's presidential candidates have effectively outsourced their campaigns to the megarich. The wealthy turn over big bucks to super PACs, which in turn make whatever arguments they want, often much dirtier than anything a candidate would want to attach his or her name to.

I've been involved in Democratic politics for two decades, and I've observed outside groups' tightening grip on American elections and reformers' repeated efforts to loosen it -- efforts that I've always supported.

Nevertheless, I've decided that the best way forward may be to go in the opposite direction: Repeal what's left of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, commonly known as McCain-Feingold, which severely limits the amount of money the parties can collect.

Doing so wouldn't get rid of the role of money in American politics. But by channeling it back into the parties, it would reintroduce accountability, the lack of which is what makes super PACs so pernicious.

First, a brief history: Before the passage of McCain-Feingold in 2002, donors could give unlimited amounts, but only to political parties. No-limit donations aren't ideal, but at least they were accountable: The parties knew who was giving, how much and where it was spent.

Moreover, donors provided direct input in crafting a candidate's message. Sometimes, donors got too involved, but at least they were working within the campaign, not around it.

But donors soon found a way around the law. They pumped cash into the first iteration of outside groups -- so-called 527s, after the relevant section in the tax code -- in the 2004 election cycle, including the infamous Swift Boat Veterans campaign against John Kerry.

Rules governing the new 527s were vague, and the Federal Election Commission did a poor job of designating which groups were subject to a $5,000 donation limit. Many decided to accept unlimited money regardless, risking federal fines.

In January 2010, the Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United case cleared up any ambiguity: It permitted unlimited donations to all outside expenditure organizations, which could advertise right up to the day of the election, as long as they didn't communicate directly with the official campaign.

In short, candidates have become little more than proxies, as the wealthy attack one another on issues in which they have a direct, often financial, stake: Wall Street regulation, climate change, health care and foreign policy. Candidates running for America's highest office have no control over the potentially billions of dollars being spent on their behalf to stake out positions they may or may not agree with.

But therein lies a potential solution, too. The moneymen behind super PACs may enjoy the freedom to spend money however they want, but in my experience, they would prefer the old system, where at least they knew the candidate was on the same page.

This way, donors might have more direct leverage over candidates, and the candidates would consider the donors' concerns, but ultimately the candidates would choose the language and packaging in which the concerns were presented, if at all.

If we're going to have unlimited donations, it should at least be controlled by the parties. After all, wouldn't you prefer that donors merely suggest candidates' concerns, rather than pick their words and messages?

------