Super PAC spending in South Carolina was outrageously high, and it's going to be even bigger in Florida and likely get bigger yet going forward into Super Tuesday.

With the race now down to a battle between the two frontrunners, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, political action committees are expected to ramp up spending to knock off one or the other candidate with saturation ad spending in the states with primaries on Super Tuesday, which this year is on March 6.

This is an unexpected turn of events.

Going into South Carolina, it looked as though Romney had three wins firmly in his grasp, Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. But then it came out that Rick Santorum had been the real winner in Iowa, and suddenly Gingrich's campaign began to surge as he did well in debate after debate.

Anti-Romney forces now saw a chance to scuttle's Romney's campaign and super PAC money began flowing into South Carolina, and not just to knock off Romney. Anti-Gingrich money flowed in as well, aiming to scuttle his campaign.

Had Romney cemented his status as frontrunner, there never would have been that surge.

Super PAC money is now flowing into Florida, which holds its primary next Tuesday, with both Romney and Gingrich hoping to seize the momentum ahead of the 10 primaries and caucuses taking place on Super Tuesday in March.

"In South Carolina super PACs spent more than candidates for sure, and overall they're outspending the candidates," says Ken Goldstein, president of Kantar Media's Campaign Media Analysis Group (CMAG).

"I think a key point that [media people] will understand is the super PACs are also paying more money for the same number of ads. So they could be outspending the candidates but have less reach."

That's because candidates receive the lowest rate available on local TV stations within 45 days of the primary. Super PACs do not.

Analysts knew that super PAC spending would be big in the wake of the 2010 Citizens United case, when the Supreme Court lifted a ban on political spending by corporations, individuals and unions, who are now backing the super PACs.

But spending has outpaced some early expectations, and nowhere was that more evident than in South Carolina, where super PACs actually spent more than the candidates themselves.

They accounted for more than half the $13 million in total political spending on the primary.

Romney, who has more money than any other candidate, spent a reported $1.9 million in the state, but the super PAC backing the former Massachusetts governor outspent him by $600,000.

Gingrich, who has been operating on a shoestring budget, spent just $640,000 on TV ads in South Carolina, while Winning Our Future, a pro-Gingrich super PAC, spent $1.76 million.

Rick Santorum spent about the same amount as his super PAC, $370,000, while Ron Paul, whose candidacy seems to be losing steam, outspent his super PAC's relatively anemic $90,000 by $370,000.

Super PAC spending surged in South Carolina after starting slow in Iowa and New Hampshire, where Romney was the favorite.

Though the states saw some PAC dollars for their earlier primaries, spending was nowhere near as heavy as in South Carolina, where local station managers said that political spending was higher than any primary in the state's history.

Most of the PAC ads were negative, another big theme in this election. Rather than denounce their competition directly in their own ads, the candidates are relying on their super PACs to play the bad guy, lobbing some damning accusations.

Romney's fall in South Carolina was blamed in part on damaging ads from Gingrich's Winning Our Future that depicted him as a ruthless venture capitalist who eliminated jobs to make money, a damaging accusation in the current economy.