A recent New York Times article revealed that spending by the super Political Action Committees backing major GOP candidates has grown dramatically as the Republican primary has become more drawn out. In most cases, super PACs, which are independently run organizations that have extremely lax spending rules, collected as much money (if not more) than their respective candidates in the month of January. Additionally, most of the money funneled into these super PACs were six or seven figure donations from a select group of corporations and super-rich Republicans.

While on the surface, nothing seems wrong with American citizens or corporations giving money to political candidates, the implications of super PACs acquiring such importance in the American political landscape is frightening. Following the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court case in 2010, super PACs were essentially given free rein to run advertisements either supporting or attacking presidential or legislative candidates. What this meant essentially was that an unlimited quantity of money could be funneled into advertisements for candidates.

As the Republican primary drags on, the implications of this unlimited funding are becoming apparent. Special interest groups that are in no way representative of the American people heavily influence what should be an expression of the sentiment of American Citizens.

Take, for example, Sheldon Adelson, one of the richest men in the world, who is worth approximately $22 billion. In January of this year, he donated $5 million to Newt Gingrich’s super PAC in the weeks before the South Carolina Primary. These funds helped Gingrich win that primary in no small way. Later in January, Adelson’s wife also donated $5 million to Gingrich’s super PAC. The New York Times reports that in the past few years the Adelsons have donated more than $17 million to Gingrich’s cause.

This type of event is neither an uncommon occurrence nor a healthy one in post-Citizens United American politics. The vast majority of Americans don’t make $5 million, or even $1 million, a year, not to mention much more than the average American could even dream of donating to a candidate or a cause.

Elections and primaries in this country are meant to express the voice of the American people. The voice of the American people is not that of the rich elite or corporations.

The trend towards higher super PAC spending is also only going to get worse. While the FEC regulates the amount of money a person can donate to a specific candidate, $2,500 per person, per candidate, it does not regulate donations to super PACs. Thus, as the election continues to drag on, and rich donors max out their donations to candidates, they can now continue to donate money toward their preferred candidate through super PACs.

Just because you are rich doesn’t mean that you alone should be able to choose the next president of the United States. Money helps win elections, and these people are financing them almost entirely on their own. American citizens should have the right to influence elections but not to this degree. If these people really want to decide who becomes the next president of the United States, maybe they should just try casting their votes on Election Day.