I've never been one to get worked up over the influence of money in the political process as long as it's invested in the dissemination of political speech (see, e.g., here). As far as I'm concerned, funding speech is the least objectionable way for fat cats to exert political influence inasmuch as the influence is being exerted through the consciousness and will of voters. Generally speaking, persuading voters that this candidate is, and that candidate isn't, worthy of election isn't a way of exercising power over them. Indeed, insofar as attempts at persuasion convey information relevant to a voter's decision (and rebut disinformation clouding his judgment), they make the vote he ends up casting a more faithful expression of his real interests and ideals. As long as special interests are going to be buying political influence anyway, better they do it that way than buy bribing public officials or lobbying them behind closed doors.
Yet there's no denying the effect that the SuperPac money now flooding into the presidential politics is having on the production values associated with mainstream political messaging. Have you noticed how much most every political spot you see nowadays (at least from a candidate other than Herman Cain) looks like the coming attractions for a summer blockbuster? I've already commented on that fact in connection with spots promoting the presidential candidacies of Tim Pawlenty and Rick Perry. But if you think it's just a Republican thing, take a look at this pro-Obama, anti-Romney spot financed by something called prioritiesUSAaction:
Give me a moment to catch my breath. I'll leave it to you to decide whether blurring the line between electioneering and popular cinema is really a good way of engaging voters' deliberative faculties. (No one ever said summer blockbusters make us smarter.) But you'd have a hard time denying its entertainment value.