Now that everyone’s favorite “Americeptional” individual has shut down his super PAC (not, obviously, because super PACs failed to morph transformer-style into the behemoths of corruption campaign finance reformers were simply CERTAIN they would become), people are beginning to wonder: what’s next for super PACs?

Seems like one of the more popular ideas is the super PACs will actually become the thing people have feared they already were: A lobbying arm on the Hill:

From autism research to dentists, a growing number of issue-based organizations are preparing to use these powerful political committees not for their prescribed purpose — advocating for the election or defeat of candidates — but as de facto lobbying arms on Capitol Hill.

Super PACs may raise and spend as much money as they please, including from corporations, unions and individuals, to broadcast whatever they want about politicians within the context of their particular special interest. Traditional issue ads, in contrast, don’t allow for full-throated attacks or endorsements, and the nonprofit groups that often sponsor them can’t by law have a primary purpose in engaging in politics like super PACs can.

It does look like Rove is exploring those opportunities after taking a much-publicized public relations hit, both on the night of the election when he had trouble accepting Romney’s defeat in Ohio, and then later in pieces like this one from The Washington Post. Most interesting in this piece is that it would appear to be gloating that Rove’s super PAC “win” rate was seriously lacking compared to the union “win” rate in this election.

The Sunlight Foundation, which tracks money in politics, calculated that only 6 percent of Crossroads money went to winners; by comparison, the Service Employees International Union, an old war horse of Democratic politics, had a 70 percent victory rate.

What’s fascinating here is that there seems to be an admission — something rare — that unions and super PACs serve many of the same functions in relation to campaigning for candidates. The piece continues a little further on:

The idea for Crossroads was born shortly after the 2008 election, when Rove wrote a column for the Wall Street Journal lamenting the fact that the Republicans had no equivalent to the alliance of organized labor and liberal interest groups that had spent $194 million on independent advertising for Democrats during the previous two years.

Which brings us to an idea for what super PACs should perhaps consider focusing on in the future (assuming we don’t somehow manage to convince Congress to do away with them and start letting people make direct contributions to candidates). They’ve tried the ad wars, and it’s fine to think about lobbying in the interim. But perhaps they should take a page from the liberal playbook and start focusing on that ground game and get-out-the-vote efforts — a difficulty given their inability to coordinate directly with candidates. But they do have a perfect model to emulate in whatever way they can.

Like the Club for Growth, the SEIU is already lobbying hard on the fiscal cliff. The labor union is urging lawmakers to tax high-income earners and to avoid cuts to Medicare and other entitlements. The Club for Growth is equally adamant that tax rates should be lowered.

Caught in the middle are members of Congress, who view the developments with growing alarm.