Well, there are PACs and there are PACs. "Leadership PACs" like Clinton and Obama set up are common means of helping out the party. As I noted, the principle has long been used at all levels of politics. Special interest PACs, on the other hand, depend on your opinion of the interest served. My own reaction is typically "My candidate's PAC supporters are good PACs - the other guys are bad PACs." A PAC is just a way of aggregating money. As I said before - I don't put much weight in Obama's election to reject PAC money in this election. I don't think the million or so that Clinton has received from PAC will weigh particularly heavy on her, compared to the $170 million she's taken in overall.
On the other hand, the feigned outrage over Obama giving campaign cash to politicians who are Superdelegates is bogus, too. (a) if you could buy a local politician for $10K Clinton would have bought them up long ago; (b) Of course Obama gives them available left over campaign money from 2006 - just as the Clinton campaign loans out Bill to "deserving" local politicos. You use what you've got to advance yourself and your party. If either of them didn't they'd be morons. (And we tried that in presidents. Didn't work out so well, did it?
)
So, my take is, bottom line: Tempest in teapot. Both ways. Neither Clinton nor Obama is for sale. We know what they stand for - time to move on. Let's find a real issue.