What checks can be put in place to prevent officers from making far
more than their company's performance merits?  It seems that the
simple check of stockholders on a board firing a CEO that gets out of
hand gets circumvented in some circumstances.  Is there any way to
regulate CEO pay?  or reason to?

Last I heard, CEO's made 475 times what their average employee made. 
(If I remember correctly.)  One might argue that there is rarely a
time when company performance merits that disparity.  Likewise, it may
not be surprising in that context that there is little inverse
discipline on CEO compensation.

My impression is that shareholders can elect board members to create
compensation committees to reflect shareholder values and hold CEOs
accountable.  However, it is not clear that this happens in a way that
deflates CEO compensation.  On the other hand, it is reasonable to
assume that if board members thought they could pay someone less to be
CEO and still get the job done to their satisfaction, they would.

What might be interesting to consider is, if a board was only willing
to pay CEOs half what they pay them now, would they still be able to
draw talent that could bring success to their enterprise.

http://www.ceogo.com/CEOFACTS/QUICKSTATS/

Some items that come to mind.
CEO of WebVan leaves company due to poor performance, yet had an
agreement for an ample pension that would dwarf the average person's
salary.

CEO of Vivendi/Universal is voted out by shareholders, but stalls
departure by claiming the vote had been tampered with by hackers. 
When he finally leaves, he works to negotiate a New York City
"apartment" into his farewell package.

CEO of Disney does not lose a vote to shareholders, but, the vote is
close enough to cause him to lose his role as Chairman of the Board.