But, this writer wonders. Does it really matter whether a contribution was pursued from the White House or across the street or in a restaurant downtown or in some obscure little cafe in a mid-western town? Does it even matter if it was a hard or soft contribution?

The contribution would have been made regardless. Large contributions are intended to buy a politician's votes in matters that interest the contributors. Let's not call them anything other than what they are, which is nothing more than money given with the intention of influencing a politician's voting.

Correct the writer if he is wrong but isn't that bribery? So, does it really matter where the inducing statements are made? And, if you think it does, what is your reasoning (other than faulty, that is)? Bribery is bribery regardless of the location of the presentation.

Afterall, any person talking to Mr. Gore about giving a large money contribution knows that Mr. Gore is Vice-President, just as Mr. Gore would know the business that the individual represents or owns. That applies whether on federal property or not.

Plus, both would be aware of the large contributor's interest in issues that will affect potential regulations affecting the business. Otherwise, there would not be any reason to even talk about it; the business could just mail in the check with a note:

"This is given to be divided equally amongst the campaigns of the various _________ party members who will be campaigning in the near future. Please do not allow this money to influence any voting on proposed legislation that might affect my business. Do what is best for the majority of the people."

Yeh, right.

No matter what, any person in the targeted party is aware of where the money came from just as any person (even from the private sector), can determine the probable, if not the exact, reason for the business to make a large contribution to one political party or the other.

All one would have to do is look at legislation which is currently being debated , or will be in the near future, and its potential affects on the business of the contributor.

Contributions from major contributors or other special interest groups are bribes, bribes made in order to influence, or control, a politician's votes or during the debates which normally rage while Congress has any bill under consideration.

Likewise, the party the contribution is directed to accepts that the money is intended to influence its votes. Only a blind, foolish, foolish, person could think otherwise.

Is there a way to solve the problem of contributory influence, of reforming the campaign funding system to avoid future corruption?

Of course, there is, Ladies and Gentlemen, but it will not come from our politicians in Washington. That would be like a hungry dog refusing his favorite food. And, that just doesn't happen under normal circumstances.