Santorum has a money problem but it took several successful primaries followed by his loss in Illinois for it to all add up.

Let's stipulate that Romney outspends Santorum in virtually every state in which they have thus far campaigned.

When Santorum wins, he consistently claims that Romney's expenditure of millions is irrelevant because it is Rick's message that resonates with the voters--who cannot be bought.  It doesn't matter how many millions Romney spends, when Rick is victorious it's because reason trumps money.

In that connection, Santorum has recently been hawking the idea that Romney's millions are not determinative, because if they were, he would have wrapped this thing up a long time ago. 

But, when Santorum loses as he did in Illinois, he blames the defeat on Romney's millions,
claiming his message couldn't get through or big Romney money bought Romney votes--implying that conservative voters are too incompetent to make decisions based on anything
other than ads, negative ads, PAC ads, etc. 

In other words, money trumps reason.

In sum, when Santorum wins, money can't buy victory, and when he loses it's
because of Mitt's money.  He can't have it both ways, so which is it?