The U.S. Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act — commonly known as health care reform — on Dec. 24 with a party-line vote. Along the way, Senate leadership used the federal treasury to grease the wheels of democracy and shore up support for the legislation. Under the final Senate bill, select states whose senators played political hard-to-get will receive exemptions and additional funding worth hundreds of millions of dollars, paid for by you, the federal taxpayer.

Wherever you lie on the political spectrum, and however you feel about health care reform, that should piss you off.

Such a simplification, though, misses the drama and intrigue that accompanied the bill’s passage. The full story starts with the filibuster.

Because Senate rules allow for unlimited debate, the minority party can block controversial legislation by continually discussing the bill. This used to mean 24-hour-long speeches — today the Senate allows “procedural filibusters” that don’t require holding the floor constantly.

Ending a filibuster requires 60 votes. Without them, the bill remains stuck in legislative purgatory.

Sixty is the magic number in the Senate. If 59 senators are on board with a bill, a senator who can potentially cast vote-number 60 wields incredible leverage.

That’s the situation Sen. Ben Nelson found himself in late last year, and he didn’t waste it.

Despite initially stating reservations to the health care reform proposal, Nelson was persuaded to change his mind. His price? An exemption for his state that would put the cost of expanding Medicaid in Nebraska wholly on federal taxes.

But the dirty buck doesn’t stop with Nelson and Nebraska.

Another amendment, designed to win over Mary Landrieu, gives extra funds to states hit by a disaster in the last seven years. More than 600 words describe which states qualify, when only Louisiana does. Estimates on the amendment’s cost range from $100 – $300 million.

Other pork also inundates the bill, though it may not have affected voting. Three states’ senior citizens have protection from Medicare cuts. A $100 million earmark for construction of a university hospital was inserted into the bill.

Is it naive to think that senators should vote for legislation based on principle, instead of on how much money they’ve been offered for their constituents?

The founders didn’t create a representative democracy so that each state could sell its vote to whoever controls the federal coffer. Call us idealistic, but this ain’t how it’s supposed to work.

We’re not sure whether such under-the-table deals are closer to bribery, with Senate leaders paying for votes, or whether a more accurate term is extortion, with senators withholding their support until they get the pork they want.

But we’re sure that such shenanigans should have no place in our democracy.