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.