$100 million for just one Senate race? What a bargain!

You can almost hear the hands wringing in mainstream media newsrooms and university faculty lounges across America.

The elite are tsk-tsking the news that it looks like the outside spending on just one U.S. Senate race will exceed $100 million.

The race in question is in North Carolina, where Democrat incumbent Kay Hagan is fighting for her political life in a dead heat contest against Republican Thom Tillis.

Kyu Oh | E+ | Getty Images

$100 million! Oh the scandal! Oh the shame! That's been the gist of most if not all the "political analysis" articles and editorials covering this race.

Read MoreWatch out, incumbents—the mood is turning

I'd like to be polite when I say this, but I can't. So here goes: Those articles and editorials are prime examples of economic and political ignorance. They also have their priorities completely backwards, and it's important to understand why.

Let's start with the politics.

The two biggest reasons why the race is getting so expensive is because the contest remains a total toss-up and it's looking more and more like control of the entire U.S. Senate will hinge on this election. If Hagan wins, it will be almost impossible for the Republicans to regain the Senate. If Tillis wins, the path to a GOP takeover becomes a lot easier.

With those stakes in mind that $100 million price tag starts to make a little more sense doesn't it?

But I'm just getting warmed up.

Read MoreHow Hillary could lose in 2016

Consider the kind of financial power every one of the 100 U.S. Senators yields with his or her office: The federal government is currently spending $4 trillion per year. So every Senator on the budget alone wields one of the just 100 votes on that massive spending behemoth every year. 1/100 of $4 trillion is $40 billion. And over a Senator's six-year term, we're talking about budget votes covering $24 trillion and that can be roughly quantified as being worth $240 billion.

Hmm … $100 million for $240 billion worth of influence? This deal is getting better all the time.

Then, of course you have to remember that the winning team in this election will only be spending roughly half that $100 million.

So now we're talking $50 million to secure $240 billion in federal budget influence for just one term.

Sen. Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis
Bill Clark and Douglas Graham | CQ Roll Call | Getty Images
Sen. Kay Hagan and Thom Tillis

For those of you not doing the math, that's $4,800 back for each dollar shelled out in campaign spending.

You don't get that kind of return from a mutual fund.

And that's why all the crying about all the rising spending on campaigns is misplaced.

The real outrage is the sheer size of the federal budget. Getting upset about $100 million in private donations and spending on a Senate race makes little sense when the same people seem to have no problem with a $4 trillion budget. It's also naïve and unhelpful to ignore the fact that access to that kind of money is worth spending some money to get.

Instead of focusing on campaign spending, the same scrutiny should be put on the much bigger issue and amount of government spending.

Read MoreObama's magic number is 40

Most of the mainstream news media rarely sees a spending program and spending increase it doesn't like. Today, it's infrastructure spending. Yesterday it was Obamacare. Tomorrow it will be something else.

How about putting two and two together and realizing that all that spending is what attracts powerful and wealthy interests to spend the biggest bucks on candidates in the first place?

How about realizing with that kind of money at stake, we're not going to attract the most unselfish kinds of people to run in the first place?

How about putting some scrutiny on the growing cost and size of government and stop treating those who faithfully persist in trying to shrink and stop that growth like kooks?

The simple fact is, spending $100 million on a Senate race really isn't shocking. But a $17 trillion debt is shocking, and until we tackle that, $100 million Senate campaigns are going to seem like nothing soon enough.

Commentary by Jake Novak, supervising producer of "Street Signs." Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.