Everybody and their brother -- even Stephen Colbert - is freaking out about "super PACs," which are an outgrowth of the Citzens United decision in 2010. Traditional political action committees (PACs) are subject to federal limits on how much money donors can give in specific election cycles. Super PACS allow groups such as nonprofit corporations and unions to spend unlimited money on political speech as long as they don't coordinate their activity with the official campaign of a given candidate. But for all the bellyaching, here are three good reasons not to get worked up over super PACS. 1. Billionaires don't need them to influence elections. In the wake of an anti-Mitt Romney documentary from Winning Our Future, a group tied to billionaire Sheldon Adelson, The New York Times fretted that the film -- which has had little or no effect on Romney's candidacay -- "underscores how [Citizens United] has made it possible for a wealthy individual to influence an election." Actually, it's always been legal for rich people to spend what they want as long as they make "independent expenditures" that aren't coordinated with official campaigns. Billionares don't need super Pacs to get their message out. But super PACS may just let the rest of us have our say. 2. Super PACS Go Negative -- and That's a Good Thing! Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), whose campaign finance legislation was rendered moot by Citizens United, complains that super Pacs not only flood elections with money but flood ...