It is this influence financial-based special interest groups have over political voting of our congressmen which must be eliminated. No person or organization with large sums of money to contribute, and, hence, power, should have the potential of affecting how any politician votes.

Such power must be held only by the people or we are not a Republic. Behind the scenes control must stop. Special interest groups, especially those established through monetary contributions must be done away with. The question is - how?

First, it is obvious that politicians are not going to want to cut their own throats, financially speaking, that is. Nor will politicians be willing to give up other benefits they gain from large corporations.

Second, it is also obvious that major corporations and strong financial groups will fight tooth and nail rather than relinquish the power they have had over easily manipulated politicians through huge contributions and benefits given in return for political favors.

Third, it is clear there will not be an effectual plan submitted by any politician. Oh, there may be a plan presented but it will, in reality, change absolutely nothing, just as past legislation has done.

Here is the problem as I see it. As long as any politician who hungers for money and power (and what politician doesn't), knows the source of the money along with the potential of other benefits, the power to control the politician will remain in the contributors' hands.

Therefore, any bill presented will not account for this fact, just as former reform has failed to do. The result will be that individual contributions, soft money, or out and out direct political bribes, will still have the potential of controlling the target party or politician/s.

However, there must be a means of controlling the contributions so they will not affect any politician's voting. If not, then the solution is simple - Stop contributions except on a very small, anonymous basis.

As with all problems, deleting control from contribuions is not insolvable. It is opportunity being presented, an opportunity for the American people to demand control of their governmental representatives and establish government for the many rather than government for the few.

The primary control we have as to how any American must behave are laws, regulations that outline legally acceptable behaviors. Along with the laws are punishments designed to rehabilitate while presumedly causing one to think about the law that was violated.

Why can't the same principles be applied to politicians? (I know there are laws on the books but if they are so great, why is our government so corrupted?) People could establish control through the demand for laws specifically written for controlling influencial contributions and politicians who are easily influenced.

For some unfathomable reason, politicians seem to think of themselves as being above the laws of the land. This might possibly be due to the apathy that abounds in the general population, apathy that leads to such comments as, "Ah, he's a politician; what do you expect?"

Or, as in an article by Charlie Reese in which he stated the House is full of felons and, furthermore, that we should just forget it, let them get on with running the nation and quit worrying about Gingrich and his probable illegal activities.

Maybe it is time we define for politicians (and much of the media) what integrity is and do so by outlining in the laws exactly how they must behave. Since they can't control themselves, the exact parameters of what is acceptable behavior while serving the public should be delineated clearly and concisely for them.

Simply put, the process will demand legislation of specific laws which will govern lobbyists, campaign contributions (soft or not), control through threats made by special interest groups, and politicians that respond to such.

The following are only ideas but the writer is certain professional legal people (legislators) have the ability to write clear, concise laws based on the ideas.

Wait a minute. That may be giving legislators far too much credit. Look at the mess we now have.

Most are attorneys, or advised by attorneys, so we must first establish that the laws be written at the fourth-grade reading level rather than in legal mumble-jumble that apparently confuses even the writers. Every American, special interest type or not, should clearly understand the laws and the automatic penalties imposed when violated.

Let us take care of one problem immediately. As for foreign contributions, the solution is quite simple. Stop them by whatever measures are necessary.

This will, of course, mean tracing every corporative contribution to its origin. This is necessary due to the potential of foreign companies hiding its contribution, as an example, to the Republican Party through its Florida subsidiary.

Foreign contributors must not have any say whatsoever in our governing. The only reason any foreign individual or group would do so (basically the same reason domestic companies make huge contributions) is to influence our politicians and, hence, control our country.

It's bad enough that our own companies act in such a distasteful manner; why should we have to put up with it from foreign excessively greedy corporations as well?

Therefore, strictly enforce the illegalty of any foreign power to make political contributions and back it up with heavy prison sentences for any politician or party accepting foreign contributions.

Any politician who receives the money, or knows of it whether for his personal campaign or his party's, must be held accountable. After all, what is the difference between this and treason?

Next, if it is a soft money contribution, force the recepient party to give the money charity if in excess of a pre-determined amount. Say, $500. Anything over that should just go to help the needy, not develop additional wealth for a politician or a company already wallowing in wealth.

As far as lobbying with 'purse in hand' so to speak, make it illegal with a heavy penalty for doing so. If a politician is proved to have talked and received favors, financial or not, to a lobbyist or special interest group with the latter NOT having a petition signed by no less than a majority of the voters in the poltician's district, then the politician is immediately removed from office and subjected to not less than a six-month imprisonment in the regular prison system. And, it doesn't matter if the perpetrator has been around since dirt or not.

Additional protection against undue influencing of a politician could be provided by the entire process of lobbying individuals or groups be witnessed by at least two representatives from the oppositional party, interested citizens (possibly open forum) and taped for future reference.

Furthermore, lobbyists must not be allowed free access to any politician but must be controlled by appointments made through a central non-partisan office. This would allow for proper precautions to be taken, precautions against bribes, physical or mental control, and to arrange for proper witnessing and recording of the meetings.

If any politician is proven to have talked or been affected by a lobbyist without meeting the requirements as outlined, then he will immediately be relieved of his office and any future political activities. Plus, the law might even stipulate a non-negotiable prison sentence (again, in the regular system, not the country-club system) for the participants in any unauthorized, secret meeting.

The lobbyist trying to affect a politician through money or any other means must be prosecuted as bribing a public official (or as a stalker if any threats are used). The mandatory, and without potential of parole, penalty should be steep, such as ten years in the regular prison system and loss of citizenship.

The above would relieve us of part of the problem created by creed and the lust for power, not only by politicians, but also by lobbyists. At least 'behind-closed-doors' lobbying could be penalized, if not eliminated, when discovered.

We would still have the problem of soft money contributions. How can we possibly control corporations contributing huge amounts of money to political parties without the expectations of getting their backs scratched in return?

This is a tough one but there must be a solution, just as there is with all problems. The hard part is keeping politicians from knowing who has contributed what and leaving the idea intact that one should be able to contribute to the party of their choice.

If not for the latter, we could require that all political contributions go to a common pool which is divided equally between the major parties and, should a third party gain enough power to warrant it, between the three parties.

At the present, anytime anyone like Perot or Forbes spend huge amounts of their own money campaigning, the opposition accuses them of trying to buy votes. Now exactly what is the difference between that and the party that has the most soft-money contributions to spend since the correlation between money spent and being elected is well-documented?

Plus, common sense will tell you that huge contributions are meant to buy votes, to get the person or party in power and, furthermore, to influence legislative voting after getting into power.

The latter is buying the politician or party. Thus, it is far worse than someone like Forbes or Perot spending advertising money to get people's votes.

Maybe all parties, financially speaking, should start out campaigning on equal financial footing. After all, the taxpayers give each party the same amount for campaigning and for presidential nominating conventions.

Maybe the only answer is large contributors should not be treated differently but should be thought of as contributing to the political system, not to individuals through party affiliations.

You know, when you stop and think about it, we know the intent of large corporations contributing to a party or leading politician. It is to buy control over the party's votes on legislation that affects the corporation and any effects detrimental to the public be damned.

The party or the individual is being bought and, in a sense, becomes an employee of the corporations and is no longer a servant of the people.

Why not require corporations contribute to the system we call 'democracy' and allow them to financially support it. Why not put all corporation monies into a common pool?

It is our democratic process as a Republic that must be re-established and forever maintained, not the interests of money-hungry corporations and self-serving politicians.

Regardless, knowledge of all contributions must be kept from politicians. And, here comes the rub.

Our government has more leaks than a sieve. How do we stop the department receiving the contributions from telling politicians who contributed what? Perhaps a heavy penalty for giving out the information, such as 20 years in prison.

At any rate, pooling the donated funds would be better than what we now have. If contributions failed to come in, then it is certain the big-money people only contributed in order to gain influence over the person or party their contributions were actually targeted for.

Or, another alternative is that we could limit the amount contributed, including soft money, based on a realistic amount determined by allowing each individual so much television, newspaper, magazine space and divide the cost equally between equally between all individual corporations wishing to contribute.

In example, each politician would be allowed a set number of commercials on television and so many words in major newspapers and magazines, along with phamplets and the like that are part of any campaign. Then, the cost would be averaged among all contributing corporations and groups that normally make large contributions. Limit their contributions to this amount.

This could also determine the amount of money allowed for campaigning. The difference in elections should not be determined by the amount of money spent but by the issues and character of the opponents.

Each politician would be controlled by his allotted time or space and would not have the advantage of additional advertising, etcetera, through the media. Perhaps, each would decide to stick to his merits and factual accomplishments rather than lying about his opponent.

Next, the above rules concerning lobbyists and politicians responding to lobbyists would take over with penalties preset upon proof of transgressions. Even appeals would have to be prevented. The idea would be to punish, not allow cases to go on and on because of appeals.

Let me repeat. If the person is proven guilty of lobbying violations, the penalties would be applied automatically without any further legal action being available.

The above will need refining as necessity dictates, but, even as it is, it would be far better than what we now have. Special interest groups through the power of money would essentially be eliminated. Lobbyists and the lobbying process would be controlled.

And, make no mistake, until money and power groups are forced to quit influencing politicians, WE, the People, are not in control but are being controlled by who has the most money and, the most power.

That, Ladies and Gentlemen, clearly defines our system as NOT being a democratic Republic.