In this case, you should and shouldn't worry.

Several presidential candidates have announced their decision to run via their website-- not via television. This signals a realization of the fundamental shift in people’s media consumption habits.

Many papers have predicted the death of publicly-matched funding due to the restrictions on fundraising, as candidates need more to fund their campaigns and compete. The internet is uniquely poised to take advantage of this for three reasons.

1. It provides the ability to raise funds from many small donors efficiently (e.g., the Howard Dean effect). It is estimated that they will need to each raise $2MM a week, every week, from now until the primaries.
2. The political influencer segment -- newshounds who drive others' opinions and voraciously consume or voters who are more likely to form groups and join organizations to help others or campaigns -- indexes significantly higher online.
3. It gives the candidates an ability to virtually travel, provide videos and hold chat sessions to reach voters in a more one-on-one fashion, and influence those who will cascade that message.

However, with the enormous amount of political money shifting (hands), there will be inventory gaps and significant ad pricing pressure, which will raise the overall value of those companies offering internet advertising.

"But that does not signal a bubble, that signals growth!" Yes and no. The difference for online versus offline is that pricing pressures online can cause exponential increases. Since political campaign money has a short shelf-life (i.e., doesn’t do a candidate much good after an election), this can also cause cascade effects.

This makes it difficult for new companies, especially startups, to grow their brands efficiently. They do not get the same efficiency per ad dollar spent, and that will signal doom for many companies on the cusp.