South Carolina will hold its critical Republican presidential primary Saturday, which happens to be the second anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court's deplorable decision in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case.

The irony is inescapable. Many top Republicans, including those seeking the presidency, applauded the Supreme Court when it destroyed the attempt of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 to limit the corruptive and propagandizing influence of big money in politics. Two years later the Citizens United decision is having its greatest impact to date in distorting the Republican presidential primary.

In Iowa, super-PAC groups backing Mitt Romney launched a blistering negative TV commercial campaign against Newt Gingrich that not only stopped the former speaker's momentum, but drowned out his message and sent Mr. Gingrich into a tailspin from which he will never likely recover.

Super PACs backing Mr. Gingrich and Texas Gov. Rick Perry responded in kind in South Carolina with a massive TV commercial assault that described Mr. Romney's former leadership of Bain Capital as a heartless campaign to profit by feasting on the assets of weakened companies and destroying jobs.

There is always some ounce of truth to these attacks, but often far larger doses of intentional distortion. Voters do not know where the money is coming from for these assault ads. The Republican candidates are all crying foul about the unfairness of it all, demanding that their opponents correct the misstatements and call off the dogs. Legally, candidates are supposed to have no part in coordinating the attacks by these independent super PACS, but anyone who actually believes there is no communication going on at some level is naïve.

But while the Republican candidates complain about the attacks, none are willing to propose policy reforms to fix the problem. Perhaps that is because party leaders know the eventual primary winner will benefit in the race against President Obama due to the massive amount of secret money corporations will spend attacking the incumbent.

How did the nation get to this place? In 2007, the not-for-profit advocacy group Citizens United produced a so-called documentary that was really a feature-length attack ad filled with false information and targeted at 2008 Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. The Federal Election Commission ruled that the Campaign Reform Act prohibited Citizens United from buying TV time and televising its movie in primary states.

In ruling on the case, the conservative justices could have narrowly focused their decision to say the law was not intended to block such documentaries, no matter how unfair. Instead the majority in the 5-4 decision issued a broad free-speech ruling, concluding that Congress could not block corporations, labor unions or any associations from spending as much money as they wanted and how they wanted to influence campaigns - as long as such efforts were not coordinated with candidate committees (wink, wink).

The court did say lawmakers could mandate disclosure requirements, so citizens would learn who was paying for the attacks. Political operatives easily got around that one by using 501(c)4 social welfare corporations, which under tax law do not have to disclose donors, to wage their campaigns of misinformation.

According the Center for Responsive Politics, about $210 million was spent by independent groups to influence federal elections in 2010, much of it from anonymous sources. They will spend far more in 2012.

There is no going back, at least not until there are significant personnel changes on the Supreme Court. But in the meantime Congress could enact laws that require disclosure and close the loopholes that so easily allow these special interest groups to hide their identity.

Unfortunately congressional Republicans, concluding the current process benefits them, have blocked any such efforts. That leaves it up to voters to elect lawmakers willing to restore some integrity to the process.