Editorial: The $6 billion presidential contest

• Money is sloshing around this campaign like the waters of Superstorm Sandy.
• The FEC could enforce its regulations, but it is gridlocked.
• Advocacy groups have asked the IRS to rein in non-profit groups whose primary focus appears to be political.

Most people have never heard of Sheldon Adelson or Fred Eychaner. But Mitt Romney and Barack Obama surely know their names. Adelson, a Las Vegas casino magnate, and his wife have been the biggest donors — at a staggering $52.2 million — to groups favoring Romney and Republicans. Eychaner, a Chicago media executive, holds that title for giving to Obama and Democrats, at $12.3 million.

Adelson and Eychaner are among 131 people, unions and corporations that have donated $1 million or more to candidates and causes this election cycle. Whoever wins on Tuesday, this much is certain: The megadonors will get their calls returned and wishes weighed by the White House and Congress.

That, in shorthand, is what's wrong with the way elections are financed.

The floodgates opened with the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling in 2010 and a subsequent lower court decision. Just about every post-Watergate reform has been undermined, and money is sloshing around this campaign like the waters of Superstorm Sandy.

Races for Congress and the White House will set a new spending record — $6 billion. Presidential candidates hold countless fundraisers; members of Congress spend endless hours dialing for dollars. While the laws still say people can't give more than $5,000 directly to a candidate in primaries and general elections, those limits are now irrelevant. Individuals, unions and corporations can give unlimited amounts to groups known as Super PACs with innocuous names such as Restore Our Future, Priorities USA Action and Majority PAC.

They've done so with a vengeance — and often with a twist that keeps their influence secret. Groups formed in the guise of "non-profit social welfare" corporations can influence the elections with secret money. These shadowy groups have spent $350 million so far, mostly on attack ads.

What can be done? The Federal Election Commission could enforce its regulations, but it is gridlocked. Advocacy groups have asked the IRS to rein in non-profit groups whose primary focus appears to be political, but the IRS has done nothing, at least publicly.

Citizens United has left the public with only one way to protect itself against the rising tide of secret donors: disclosure. Republicans in the Senate defeated a disclosure measure in July. Perhaps when the public looks back at an election that is setting records for high spending, negative ads and secrecy, it will demand that Congress act.

But don't hold your breath. Winners tend to think the system works fine. It could take a scandal to bring about improved disclosure or, better yet, public financing.