Rick Santorum has been warning since 2008 that Satan has his sights on the United States of America. I checked; he doesn't.
What Satan is focused on, the last time I asked, are those people with millions of dollars lying around to contribute to super political action committees.
Super PACs were introduced to American political campaigns by the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision of 2010. It basically said there must be no limits on what individuals, corporations, unions or other organizations can give to a super PAC. The only requirement is that there be a curtain of separation between the super PAC and any candidate it supports.
In practice, the curtain appears to be about as operative as the one that separated actress Janet Leigh from the Bates Motel slasher in the 1960 movie "Psycho." The Supreme Court essentially gave corporations and other bodies the same right of free expression as individuals. I will believe that when Texas executes one of these organizations.
In the meantime, very rich individuals -- the top half-percent -- are pouring astonishing amounts of money into the campaigns of the candidates in quest of the Republican nomination. There is also every reason to believe that the campaign of President Barack Obama will be in quest of the same magnitude and number of donations from the Democratic side of the rich house of American privilege.
It is probably not a coincidence that some of these mega-donors hold political views that are not exactly mainstream. The logic goes that, if the person's views were close enough to the mainstream for his candidate to have a decent chance of winning the nomination in a fair fight, there would be no need to arm him with a breathtaking sum to keep him in the contest.
This takes us to where candidates, such as Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum -- with Mr. Obama soon to arrive -- employ super PAC cut-outs, such as "American Crossroads," "Restore our Future," "Winning our Future," "Endorse Liberty" and "Red White and Blue Fund." Big contributors have anted up least 20 donations of between $1 million and $12 million each and put more than $55 million into the campaigns as of this month.
I am still looking through the list of super PACs for "Selling our Future."
There are at least three major problems with this phenomenon in terms of retaining the integrity of our democratic system.
The first is that the people who "front" the money for a candidate's campaign present their bill after the campaign is over.
If he wins, these people will want jobs. They will want as their payoff positions on commissions, ambassadorships, even Cabinet or sub-Cabinet slots. These will be jobs for which they may be grossly unqualified or, at the least, not the most qualified. In that sense, the American people will be reimbursing these donors after the election for their monetary investments in the candidates.
That isn't right, and it will be bad for the country, particularly if, as is manifestly the case, some of these donors hold extreme views or have no qualifications to occupy the positions that elected candidates will feel obliged to give them. Some are hedge fund managers, another a casino owner and another told the "aspirin between the knees as contraception" story. Mr. Romney has received millions from ex-Bain Capital executives.
The other piece of the puzzle takes one out into deep, hot water. I will call that the "one man, one vote" aspect.
It is hard to say that just because one person has a personal fortune of $100 million he does not have the right to throw it into a political campaign. It's his money and he can do what he likes with it. He still has only one vote, just as the person living from hand to mouth does.
On the other hand, a politically engaged person with a $25 billion fortune to use in the campaign has infinitely more influence on the choice of America's president than does the ordinary person who might be able to scrape up $25 to throw in if he wants to.
But that's America in 2012. That's the America where 15 percent of the people live below the poverty line as its richest people are taxed at 15 percent, thus enabling them to pile up fortunes large enough to permit them to give $11 million to a super PAC to back the campaign of a Newt Gingrich.
There is a way for ordinary Americans to even the playing field. What these super PACs do with the money from their rich donors is buy television time; rent private planes to tote around their candidates, their families and their staffs; rent offices and halls to promote their candidates, and otherwise dish out the Koolaid that the voter is supposed to lap up.
For the voter to beat the game and to somehow get a cold-eyed view of the choice that will confront him at the ballot box, he must know where each candidate's money comes from, and the nature of the people -- the hedge fund managers, the investment fund operators, the casino owners -- who are funding them.
With this information in mind, it would be easier to make a logical decision as to who the candidate is and, especially, whom he represents. With this information in mind, the money is neutralized to a degree and the vote becomes more sensible.
First Published: February 29, 2012, 5:00 a.m.