The New York Times published an editorial earlier today that you may want to read all about.
Even if the Supreme Court has started treating the cash of wealthy corporations and special-interest groups as free speech, there are responsible ways to put brakes on a runaway money train that promises to generate little in the way of voter turnout or issue elucidation.
If Hillary and Rudy want to spend millions of dollars on their campaigns that may or may not do anything for them, why not let them? Their campaigns alone employ hundreds of people. Wasn't that an issue at one point? So what if they are spending too much money? Right, they're elitists, okay, New York Times, that's why your crowd favorite, Barack Obama is doing so well in the polls? Because he's an elitist? Or is it that he's the only non-elitist there?
So if he's not an elitist, and he is doing well, who cares if the others are spending millions... it's clearly not helping them at all.