Got an extra $52 million in your petty cash slush fund? Want to buy an election? Well, you can and no one would be any the wiser unless Congress passes the badly needed DISCLOSE Act.

If passed, the act would require greater disclosure of who is spending how much on political advertising. The rich still will be allowed to give huge sums of money to so-called Super PACs, but the bill would ensure that the rest of us know just who is spending that money in an effort to influence elections.

A couple of years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court in a hard to fathom ruling said that, for political purposes, corporations and unions are people with the same First Amendment rights and protections afforded those of us who are, indeed, real people.

In the wake of that ruling, outside groups called super PACs have grown in number, wealth and, thus, power. The rules that limit how much individuals can contribute to politicians’ campaigns don’t apply to these super PACs. So, corporations, unions and the super-rich can give as much as they want, to be spent on advertising designed to influence the outcome of elections. Officially, wink-wink, the super PACs cannot coordinate their messages with the actual campaigns of those running for office. Uh huh, they would never think of doing that, right?

Instead, the super PAC ads simply mirror closely the candidates’ messages.

Through Feb. 23, super PACs have spent $51.9 million trying to influence the November presidential election, most of it in support of the various candidates for the Republican nomination. A full 25 percent of that money came from just five extremely wealthy people.

The Supreme Court created this political monstrosity and Congress should work to overturn the court’s bizarre ruling. But that likely will take a lot of effort and time. Until then, Congress should pass the DISCLOSE Act so that we can at least know who is seeking to buy our elections.