The worst development by far in the 2012 presidential race is the emergence of powerful super PACs that heavily influenced the Iowa Republican caucuses through a barrage of vicious attack ads.

Our political system increasingly responds to the rich and powerful, but the trend has steepened since the most recent presidential election — largely thanks to the Supreme Court’s abominable decision striking down the McCain-Feingold campaign regulation with the bizarre finding that corporations have the same rights to make political donations as individuals.

Mitt Romney’s slim victory in Iowa might well have been a result of the blistering, virtually anonymous $4 million campaign waged against Newt Gingrich by the so-called independent super political action committee Restore Our Future, which is controlled by close political and personal associates of Romney. Less than a month before the Iowa caucuses, Gingrich was the front-runner in the polls, but he finished a distant fourth Tuesday.

At the time of the court ruling a year ago, Gingrich called it “a great victory for free speech.” However, he spent last week bashing Romney and the system that worked to his advantage. Former conservative presidential candidate Mike Huckabee joined the chorus, calling super PACs “one of the worst things that ever happened in American politics.”

It’s impossible to eliminate money’s influence on politics, but liberals and conservatives now can witness the damage the Supreme Court ruling will wreak. Congress has to work on new laws to create a political system that is at least closer to being fair.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russell Feingold, D-Wis., sponsored the 2002 bipartisan campaign finance reform that served the nation well for eight years. The McCain-Feingold law sharply limited corporations and unions from using money from their treasuries to influence campaigns.

All that changed with the high court’s 5-4 Citizens United ruling. Individuals are limited to giving $2,500 directly to a candidate in the primary election and another $2,500 for the general election. But if the money is going to super PACs, donors, whether individuals or corporations, can give any amount they want — and they are giving millions — as long as the PACs don’t coordinate activities with candidates. Because of a loophole in the law, the PACs don’t even have to disclose their donors or donations in a timely manner. At a minimum, Congress needs to require immediate disclosure.

Romney isn’t the only one with a supposedly independent — though it sure doesn’t look it — political vehicle to further a campaign. Rick Perry’s super PAC, Make Us Great Again, reportedly has raised millions. Jon Huntsman unleashed his super PAC, Our Destiny, against Romney in New Hampshire. Meanwhile, President Barack Obama’s supporters are putting together a $100 million super PAC for the fall.

Congress needs to rein in huge, destructive donations by wealthy individuals, organizations and corporations that now can anonymously wield extreme influence on elections. The fallout from Citizens United is as damaging to the public trust as it is to some party leaders, as Gingrich now famously has learned.