For anyone with a sense of humor, our recent congressional election provided a few laughs.
First, the Republican Party, the self-proclaimed party of family values and of duty, nominated a man whose violation of those values could not be more blatant.
Second, despite its professed disgust with professional politicians, the electorate chose a career politician over a successful businesswoman who was new to politics.
Third, Republican candidate Mark Sanford, whose party has stymied every attempt to rein in the special interest money that corrupts our elections, made a big issue of his opponent's indebtedness to special interest money.
Never miss a local story.
Well, not just any special interest money. According to Sanford, his opponent's money was tainted because it came from unions.
Imagine. Unions had the audacity to contribute to a candidate. Never mind that business interests outspent unions 15-to-1 in the 2010 election, the last one that had effective rules about disclosure. That old data describe the situation before the Republican-appointed justices on the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 vote, abolished all limits on corporate donations and facilitated anonymous donations. And now the Republicans in Congress are blocking all attempts to restrict amounts and require disclosure of campaign contributions.
With Sanford's newfound zeal on this issue, do you suppose he might buck the Republican leadership and support the measures that would restrict contributions and require disclosure?
Don't make me laugh.