Mention George Soros anywhere on the far-right and you’ll get fulminations.  To Republicans, Soros is an aristocratic mastermind who swore to “spend whatever it takes” to end the Bush-Neocons’ grip on political power in America.  He is a vile plutocrat, striving to trample the will of plain-folks, along with the populist GOP that protects them.

Okay, after wiping away tears of ironic laughter, one is left wondering.  If George Soros - and other rich liberals - are so potent and determined, why have they accomplished so little?

On the right, you see plenty of men and women who have proved ruthlessly effective at translating money into power, directing vast resources toward politically effective ends. There’s Rupert Murdoch, controlling much of the world’s mass media, and deep-pocket interests who funded Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.  A pair of wealthy and radically fanatical brothers have leveraged millions from likeminded investors, to wrest control over most of the nation’s voting machines.  Not to mention foreign commodities moguls who have used deep fingers of influence to fare best of all, in recent years.  The list goes on and on.

All right, it’s hard to envision Steven Spielberg pulling shenanigans like that.  But isn’t there something that rich Democrats can do, other than donate up to their campaign limit and then host a lot of parties?

Do Friendly Billionaires Matter?

Let’s be clear.  Our present electoral fight won’t depend on the whim of a few  moguls.  Nor is Culture War all about “rich vs poor” - not yet. Historically, most nations were wracked by class struggle - and we may yet revert to that age-old pattern - an especially dangerous schism, when the poor will be technologically empowered.  But such times may be averted.  Indeed, many of today’s affluent are loyal to the mobile, competitive, egalitarian and rather-flat society our parents made, after World War II.  One that rewarded innovative commerce, without entrenching permanent castes.

So, let’s suppose there are a lot of wealthy, frustrated democrats and independents out there.  With so much hanging in the balance, what’s a rich dude to do? Time is too short to start a competing company to, say, make honest voting machines.  Is there a quickie option for some liberal billionaire? One that won’t violate the law, or fairness, but maybe cancel out some cheater on the other side?

Some possibilities are already out there.  For example, organizations that perform poll watching and electoral process-checking could absorb large donations in coming weeks, in time to do a lot of good.  Though these groups are officially neutral, we know who would benefit, if elections proceed transparently and fair.

But it's my role to look in directions that are more, well, unconventional.  So let me bring up one idea, from a general compilation of Concepts for Billionaires, that's been in circulation for some time. 

A Henchman's Prize

I've long wondered why some billionaire who is worried about our open society doesn't pony-up and offer truly substantial  whistleblower rewards. One action that could be especially well-targeted, during the next month or so -- while having immense publicity value -- would be to announce a great big prize for proof of massive cheating or dirty tricks, in time for the evidence to matter, before the election.

For best effectiveness, one would couch the idea in nonpartisan terms.  Offer a million dollars to any conspirator who turns coat and steps forward with - say - solid evidence that either party has engaged in a systematic effort to deny the vote to a thousand or more people in any political constituency.  Plus five million if the evidence leads to rapid, public plea bargains or convictions.

Yes, five million dollars is a lot of money.  But note that the larger sum is paid upon conviction, in which case it's a small amout to buy a scandal-tumult of huge proportions. Perhaps big enough to transform politics in America.

Sure, people will see through couching it in nonpartisan terms.  (Though a Republican co-sponsor could be found.)  But even that implication would be useful, highlighting what everybody knows -- where that kind of cheating is coming from.

Why emphasize "conspirator"?

This is where the word henchman comes in.  Those most likely to have the goods -- real evidence -- will be people already deep inside.  Ironically, a henchman is probably venal and psychologically primed to jump ship, if offered the right combination of inducements -- both cash and introduction to people who can offer some immunity.  (Rep. Henry Waxman, for example.)  This qualifier also keeps out a flood of mere rumor-mongers, who have other places to go. 

There are many other possible whistleblower prizes.

But there’s a catch.  Any such program must be carefully phrased. A billionaire will have to fight past his or her own attorneys, in order to do something like this.  One doesn’t want to be held liable for enticing unproved or false allegations, or slander.  (There might be a discreet application process and a committee to vet claims, while police and prosecutors are given their full due.)

Still this sort of thing has one advantage -- it could be set up and unleashed quickly.  And it appeals to the avaricious spirit that has driven so many GOP dirty tricks operatives, ever since the days of Nixon and Donald Segretti.  Remember, tempting rats to betray each other ought to be easy, if you use the right cheese.

And all it might take is just one.