Washington ( CNN ) -- When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid , D-Nevada , pronounced this week that `` 17 angry old white men will wake up and realize they 've just bought the country , '' after the elections , he echoed the distaste many Americans feel at the secrecy surrounding the flood of money pouring into campaigns . Political experts estimate $ 6 billion will be spent during the 2012 presidential elections — a large chunk of it via anonymous donors thanks to a Supreme Court ruling which allows unlimited corporate campaign donations . That 's enough money to give 6/7ths of the world 's population $ 1 each . Politicos and even comedians have made much ado about the influence of anonymous super rich donors and well heeled super PACs , groups that can raise money from a number of sources and spend unlimited amounts independent of and in support of political campaigns . Democrats on Capitol Hill bemoaned failed efforts this week at forcing out of the shadows political campaign donors who give more than $ 10,000 to independent groups . Republicans called Democratic efforts a disingenuous attempt to silence critics by going `` after the microphone instead , by trying to scare off the funders , '' said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell , R-Kentucky , long an advocate of campaign donations as a form of free speech . Senate Republicans block DISCLOSE Act for second straight day . `` We are determined to prove that transparency is not a radical concept , '' Sen. Tom Udall , D-New Mexico , said of the bill to force groups to reveal big donors ' identities . `` Our bill is as simple and straightforward as it gets -- if you are making large donations to influence an election , the voters in that election should know who you are . The American people are blessed with common sense . They know that when someone will not admit to something , it is usually because there is something to hide . '' It 's an issue that 's chock-ful of sermonizing and spin . `` Every election we have a lot of hand-wringing ... but this issue has been with us a long time , '' said Michael Toner , a former Federal Election Commission chairman and a veteran campaign finance attorney . The fact is the Supreme Court has found that this practice qualifies as free speech . The fact is lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have punted -- repeatedly -- on forcing big donors to disclose their identities . Lawmakers such as McConnell once supported transparency for these types of donations but later vociferously advocated anonymity to protect donors from harassment . The fact is both major political parties and conservative and liberal groups alike have benefited for decades from money donated from the shadows . `` Yes , there are some pretty rich people who support super PACs because they have some strong ideas . The super PACS are not the evil so many people portray them to be , '' said Joel Gora , a Brooklyn Law School professor who worked on Buckley v. Valeo , the landmark 1970s Supreme Court case that determined spending money to influence elections is a form of free speech . Pro-Obama super PAC raises $ 6.1 million in June . `` Just because some people can speak more than other people , the solution is not to prevent them to speaking , '' Gora said . `` It 's to help ... level up free speech for everybody . '' Still , something about it , for many folks , just feels , well , wrong . A poll conducted in April of roughly 1,000 likely voters by the the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law found that `` one in four Americans — 26 % — say they are less likely to vote because big donors to super PACs have so much more influence over elected officials than average Americans . '' Pro-Romney super PAC brings in $ 20 million in June . For some voters , big dollars means big trouble for the electoral process . `` Of course that kind of money spells trouble ! If nothing else , it leaves the suspicion that the office is for sale to the highest bidder , '' Phil Clouser said on CNN Politics ' Facebook page . `` Campaign spending should be limited to whatever the office will pay for that term . '' Others feel the bluster over anonymous donors is a red herring . President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney `` will each spend a lot on advertising as is usually done . This election is much more important to conservatives so they are making a lot of contributions to Romney , '' Judi Purcell said on CNN Politics ' Facebook page . `` Obama has gone to a lot of fundraisers so he has a lot of money too . That 's the way is it and those who do n't like it do n't have to like it . '' Why Democrats need labor unions .
Roughly $ 6 billion will be spent on presidential election -- much through anonymous donors . The Supreme Court has ruled that this practice qualifies as free speech . Lawmakers ca n't agree on requiring big donors to disclose their identities . Some say they 're less likely to vote because big donors have so much influence .