Casino billionaire and right-wing activist Sheldon Adelson has already given at least $10 million to Republican-Allied Super PACs so far this cycle… and he plans to make at least one more Super PAC donation. But, he told Las Vegas Sun political reporter Jon Ralston, after that he plans to keep his massive political spending secret.

Ralston writes:

“I’m going to give one more small donation – you might not think it’s that small – to a SuperPAC and then if I give it will be to a c4,” a reference to 501c4 nonprofits, which are tax-exempt and also exempt from disclosures. I opined that surely meant Crossroads, which would allow him to indirectly help Mitt Romney and Sen. Dean Heller [R-NV], who is running against Rep. Shelley Berkley [D-NV]. Berkley used to work for Adelson, but they had a falling out in the mid-1990s and he surely would love to see her lose.

“Do you know how many c4s there are?” Adelson retorted, as if to try to indicate he had more choices than Crossroads. Indeed. But I can’t think of too many that will influence who controls the White House and the U.S. Senate. And did he telegraph where his money is going with the Rove comments? I think so.

Adelson also declined to tell Ralston which Super PAC he intended to support with that final “small donation.”

The casino mogul seemingly conceded that he didn’t want his future political “speech” to be transparent because voters might take that information into consideration when evaluating his message.

Adelson said he believed the media’s inevitable use of the phrase “casino mogul” whenever his donations became public “is not helpful to the person .”

So, thanks to the Supreme Court’s stream of rulings against political spending limits and the unwillingness of the Republicans in Congress and on the Federal Election Commission to even mandate disclosure of independent political ad funders, billionaires like Adelson can simply hide their massive donations through (c)(4)s when they get tired of the media and public scrutiny. And rather than letting the voters decide how much credibility to give an ad bankrolled entirely by an anti-union gambling magnate — he can just choose to keep them in the dark.

While Ralston seems convinced Adelson’s support will go to Karl Rove’s secretive Crossroads GPS, the most famous right-wing (c)(4), the truth is he and we have no idea. Adelson could give the money to former Sen. Norm Coleman’s (R-MN) American Action Network. Or to the Koch Brother’s Americans for Prosperity. Or some totally unknown 501(c)(4)s that could be collecting hundreds of millions of dollars without any footprint, waiting to pounce with a barrage of shady attack ads. Or, given his billions, all of those.

Billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson has already given the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future $21 million this year. Now, as his preferred candidate flounders in the polls, Adelson is floating the possibility of donating an additional $100 million.

A political contribution of that magnitude from a single source would be absolutely unprecedented. The next largest single contribution — a mere $5 million that “singlehandedly revived Gingrich’s campaign” last month — came from Adelson as well. All super PACs combined have raised $98.5 million this cycle, less than the possible $100 million Adelson check.

With net worth estimated at approximately $25 billion, Adelson is the eighth richest person in the United States. When asked if uber-wealthy plutocrats making political purchases of this magnitude was fair, he offered this response:

“I’m against very wealthy ­people attempting to or influencing elections,” he shrugs. “But as long as it’s doable I’m going to do it.”

Setting aside Adelson’s Orwellian hypocrisy, progressives could not have said it better themselves. They are not only opposed to rich people buying elections, but also against it being perfectly legal to do so.

Indeed, one need look no further than Gingrich’s rhetoric and policy proposals in the Middle East to see where Adelson is receiving a return on his investment. For nearly two decades, Adelson has lobbied for an extremely controversial proposal to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Now, Gingrich has said he will do so on his very first day as president. Adelson has also lauded Gingrich’s characterization of Palestinians as “an invented people.”

Individuals should not be permitted to buy public policy in this country, yet our campaign system post-Citizens United and the rise of super PACs permits them such undue influence. As long as unlimited political contributions remain legal, billionaires like Adelson will continue to take advantage of the system.

Late last year, the Montana Supreme Court refused to follow the Supreme Court’s erroneous Citizens United decision and upheld that state’s longstanding ban on corporate money in politics. Although we criticized that decision shortly thereafter — a lower court must follow the Supreme Court’s decisions even when they are obviously and tragically erroneous — the Montana justices’ overreaching does not excuse the Supreme Court’s far greater sin in handing down Citizens United in the first place. As we said before, “[t]he U.S. Supremes will doubtless decide they need to review the Montana decision. They should do so, and they should reverse their error in Citizens United as soon as possible.”

The day has now come for the Supreme Court to fix its most egregious error since Bush v. Gore:

Challengers to Montana’s ban on corporate independent expenditures—recently upheld by the Montana Supreme Court—have asked Justice Anthony Kennedy to put a hold on the state court’s ruling and have urged the full Court to reverse it. . . .

“The Montana Supreme Court held the Ban constitutional despite the holding in Citizens United v. FEC, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), that `[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.’ Immediate relief is needed to prevent irreparable harm to the Corporations’ First Amendment free-speech right. Montana’s primary elections are on June 5, making it vital that planning begin now for independent expenditures before the election.”

Citizens United was wrong the day it was decided, and it has only succeeded in refuting itself during the two years it’s been in effect. One of the core conclusions in Citizens United was the majority’s statement that so-called “independent expenditures” — as opposed to contributions directly to campaigns — “do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

It’s unclear how anyone could have ever believed this was true, but it’s impossible to believe this now. Casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson’s family, for example, gave $11 million to a Super PAC intended to elect Newt Gingrich, and Gingrich met personally with Adelson after this money started flowing. Mitt Rommey has also met with Adelson, and, while it will never be known what the two men said to each other, Romney managed to extract from that meeting an assurance that Adelson “will be behind him 100 percent should he become the nominee.”

Maybe there really were five justices who didn’t understand that this was bound to happen when Citizens United was handed down in 2010, but, in the wake of these backroom meetings between top funders and their candidates, the justices cannot possibly deny the fact that Citizens United leads to corruption or at least the appearance of it. It’s time for the justices to simply admit they were wrong the first time around and overrule Citizens United.