( CNN ) -- Those who oppose the 2010 Citizens United Supreme Court ruling and the explosion of outside money in politics might be breathing a sigh of relief that more than $ 1 billion in outside spending in federal elections , which heavily favored Republicans , did not seem to buy the results that the big spenders wanted . After all , most of the candidates backed by Karl Rove 's Crossroads groups and the Chamber of Commerce , beginning with Mitt Romney , lost their races . But those concerned about the role of money in politics should n't be relieved . Not at all . Here are three reasons to keep worrying : . 1 . The biggest problem with money in politics is not that it buys election results but that it skews legislative priorities . Senators and members of Congress already spend ridiculous amounts of time raising money for their next election campaigns and to help fellow party members get elected and stay in office . Big outside money is going to make this money chase worse . It is not enough to worry about what your opponent can raise ; now a billionaire across the country can put a million or more dollars up against you at the drop of a hat any time you take a position that the billionaire does n't like . The fund-raising frenzy will never cease . This potential for massive outside spending -- which may reflect the preferences of just one or a handful of people -- will change how Congress considers and passes legislation . Sheldon Adelson , the casino magnate , dropped $ 60 million or more in this election without making a dent in his net worth . How many members of Congress do you think would be interested in supporting gaming legislation , which Adelson opposes ? And if they want to oppose Adelson , members would have to raise even more outside money to try to level the playing field . Most worrisome when it comes to legislative skewing is what we as the public do n't see : what gets left out of legislation , small favors buried in the fine print , things that get killed in committee . Sometimes a lot of money is riding on these invisible legislative choices . 2 . Money still matters in campaigns . No serious student of American politics believes that the candidate with the most money always wins . After all , look at Linda McMahon , who spent more than $ 100 million of her own money in two bids to become senator for Connecticut . But money gets candidates second , third and fourth looks even when those candidates are lousy and do n't deserve it . Consider Newt Gingrich in the Republican presidential primary . He survived as long as he did only because of the money from Adelson . In close races , money can make a difference . Republican U.S. Rep. Dan Lungren of California lost a close contest in his race thanks in part to large amounts of outside spending against him . Not coincidentally , Lungren had been one of the first Republicans in recent years to call for campaign finance reform to curb the influence of outside money . A Sunlight Foundation analysis found at least four House races where outside money may have tipped the outcome . At the presidential level , the unprecedented amount of outside money made the Obama-Romney race competitive , where it otherwise would not have been . While Obama succeeded in almost keeping up with the Republican fund-raising machine ( and Obama also seemed to spend his campaign dollars more wisely ) , it is not clear that future Democratic candidates will be able to replicate the Obama fund-raising strategy , raising massive amounts of money from tens of millions of small donors . If big outside money in presidential elections leans toward corporate interests , it will give the candidates those interests back an edge in close elections . 3 . Secret money is growing and dangerous . Thanks to holes in our disclosure laws , which Republicans in Congress so far have not seemed interested in fixing , much of this outside spending is going through groups who do not disclose their donors . The lack of disclosure is troubling for two reasons . First , voters use information about donors to evaluate campaign messages . Voters should know when Chevron or a big union is behind a `` social welfare '' group with a nice sounding name like `` Americans for a Strong America . '' Even more importantly , disclosure provides the press and public with tools to smoke out some legislative sweetheart deals that members of Congress might be offering big spenders . If we are going to be in a world without effective limits on campaign spending -- and the Supreme Court seems quite unlikely to reverse course on this point anytime soon -- disclosure is a second-best solution to try to limit the legislative leanings caused by large amounts of outside money . Sunlight can help expose the worst abuses of the political system wrought by unregulated money . Rather than breathing easily , opponents of big , undisclosed outside money in politics need to continue to press the case for reform , beginning with a desperate need to fix our laws requiring disclosure by all who spend big bucks in our elections . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Richard Hasen .
Rick Hasen : Big money did n't buy the election , but it 's still hugely influential . Ineffective spending limits let big donors influence lawmakers , skew priorities , he says . He says outside spending ca n't always buy elections , but it has good chance in close races . Hasen : Unidisclosed donors keep voters from seeing who backs candidates , deals .