Individuals deal with other people or businesses to make arrangements that are mutually beneficial.

The judicial system even deals with prosecutable criminals or others who are guilty by convicting of lesser offenses or letting them off completely providing they become witnesses for the state, to save the courts' time, or for other less-than-admirable reasons.

Politicians deal with other politicians, contributors and the like, to make arrangements in which the best for all involved. With the exception of the people, that is.

It seems to be universally accepted that corruption exists in government. Corruption leads to any parties involved being interested in the best deals for all those who have an a viable interest in the deals being made.

Comprimise and the necessity for it is the guiding principle of the dealing. "You give a little to get more than nothing and I'll give a little to get more than nothing. Thus, we both benefit but not as greatly as we both would like."

Or, "You go along with what we need and we'll see that you are well taken care of." That is dealing in a nutshell, whether it be between individuals, businesses, or our governmental representatives (meaning both senators and representatives).

Too often the public, the people the politicians are elected to serve, gets the short end of the stick. How could they not when their elected officials, the people hired to speak for them, do not?

While writing several other essays on corruption and political contributions, the writer began considering dealing and how it could enter into the quotient of politics 'between' the parties. Like, does it? And, if it does, just how extensive is it?

We are not likely to ever receive concrete answers to these questions so much of this is speculation. It is speculation, however, based on actual events.

Now, we know deals are often made considering the passing of bills. One party will give a little, as does the oppositional party, in order for both to appear favorable in the eyes of the voting public. This is especially true when the public makes such an outcry that both parties must respond as they know the public wants.

On the contrary, there are times when neither will compromise and legislation is held up for months, such as was the case of the current budget.

Too often, one party or the other will try to get items that aren't even related to the topic of the bill under consideration. Our legislation becomes political game-playing which wastes considerable amounts of time and money. That is your tax dollars NOT at work.

Then, when something is finally done, both parties take credit and they talk about how great they are since "it proved we can work together."

Just a thought but if politicians feel they can brag about working together in the governing of our nation, isn't it indicative of how little they do so, even if it is their job.

It's like hiring someone to paint your house and, then one day when the person finally puts on a little paint, bragging about getting the little bit of work done.

Congress has as a primary function the job of legislating the country. It does not have the job of creating conflict with other political interests or between the parties for the selfish reason of 'party politics'.

Nor is part of the job to create conflict (which results in delays) while striving to meet the desires of a special interest.

Anyway, after thinking about the political controversies that have come up in the past, the writer began focusing on a possibility of corruption which has not been considered. The Gingrich situation supplies the clearest, best example of possible dealings between the parties.

As you will recall, Gingrich did take tax-deductible funds and used them for his own political purposes. He lied to Congress, the congressional body, his direct constituency and the American public for two years.

The writer suspects if Gingrich had been completely investigated as being highly suspect of criminal actions, the investigation would have proved he knew what he was doing as he was inticing contributors to donate their money. It is even possible he told them to contribute to education as it would be tax deductible.

Furthermore, it quite likely would have been proven, even though his attorneys probably advised him the use of funds was illegal, he decided for himself to go ahead and use them anyway. Greed and the willingness to be corrupted assures this.

He was a most effective person when soliciting funds. Was he effective by using means which might be questionable, such as telling contributors they could deduct whatever amount they contributed provided they donate the money to specific, tax-deductible causes?

This could have occurred even though the contributors knew, and Gingrich knew, the intent was to use the funds for himself or party politics. In other words, a way to get around hard-money limits.

Did he tell the contributors of his plan and how they could help themselves by beating the tax system, and, at the same time, look good to the populace in their local areas. E.g., contributors to education are usually admired by other people.

As to answers, we will never know for certain, will we? The reason we will not - there was not any investigation into Gingrich's activities nor is any planned.

The writer is just a regular person but if a person lied to me for two years concerning a theft, he would suspect the person did whatever was done knowing it was illegal when he did it. Logically, there is not any reason to lie if one doesn't have knowledge of their own guilt.

And, yet, the Democrats didn't demand a complete investigation into Gingrich's past activities or the taking of the funds. Why didn't they? The writer found this curious at the time and still does.

The Republicans had been after President Clinton nearly three years of his first term. The party swore to and did fight everything President Clinton tried to do.

Any little thing they could dig up, they made public. They even attached items to important bills as they knew the added clauses would cause Mr. Clinton to veto them, providing they passed the House and Senate.

Yet, the Democrats, as were all other politicians, were nearly silent concerning Gingrich.

The media, due to lack of pressure or party bias, did not push for a complete investigation.

As time went on, Gingrich kept his job with Congress with the media reporting his taking of the funds was just a mistake in judgement.

It was as if everyone, the people in Congress, the media, and the people of the United States had forgotten what Gingrich had done. So, he was given a slap on the wrists and fined $300,000, a fine he was loaned the money to pay. But, that's another story.

It seems to the writer it would have been an ideal case for the Democrats to take advantage of. The media, the people, and the Republican party's focus could easily have been taken off the Whitewater case. Here was the House Leader who, through his own confession, had illegally taken donated funds for his own use.

But, Democrats were essentially silent. This has been rattling around for quite some time in the writer's mind and, perhaps - just perhaps - it delineates how extensive corruptive dealing in Washington is.

Think. Would it have helped or hurt the Democrats to push for an extensive investigation into all of Gingrich's activities, not just the one particular case of illegal use of funds? What could the effects have been if a full-scale investigation had been conducted?

Also of possible influence in the situation is the fact it is a given (at least in the majority of the public) that corruption is at every level of government but most extensive in Washington, DC.

Was a deal made between leaders of the Democratic party and the Republican not to oust Gingrich because of a rippling effect? Perhaps the possibility should be explored.

If it was proven Gingrich did knowingly solicit the funds by telling donators they could deduct the funds even though he would be using them for party purposes, would this not have the possibility of the investigation turning up other - what shall we say - mistakes of other politicians, including those in the Democratic party?

Also, if Gingrich's guilt were proved, would this not also have the possibility of causing every person who became the House Leader or some other high position in government being investigated? This could hold especially true if the oppositional party was extremely incised and wanted retribution.

People throughout government are investigated and many come up short of desired character. Isn't it possible this practice might extend to other leadership, formal and informal, positions in Congress?

How about the damage that could be done to the image the members of Congress would like for the American people to have of them, an image of being great Americans who have the highest levels of integrity and being completely trustworthy? As you well know, this image is quite tarnished and is likely to become even more tarnished.

Writers write about Washington being full of felons, of Washington politics being a dirty game of political dealings, and of the corruptive influence of Washington and big money.

And, yet, none of the writers or publications or major TV networks push for a correction of the situations causing and sustaining mistrust.

People do talk about not trusting politicians and the corruption they believe exists in our political system. This is usually just based on suspicions or because someone else thinks so or because they read an article about it. But, that doesn't mean they actually believe it, at least not to the degree required to take action.

Would not a conviction of Gingrich or an ousting of him have proved to them the House could very well be full of felons because of fallout? After all, many do believe politicians make all sorts of shady deals and only felons want other felons around.

'Washington politics' includes the idea politicians in Washington are in an exclusive group and, hence, they all know what the others are doing. That is part of being in-the-know'.

Would not a complete criminal investigation of Gingrich have a extremely high potential of proving beyond a shadow of doubt that people's suspicions are valid, that all politicians are corrupt. And, corrupt to the extent they condone the feloneous acts of their fellow congressmen?

Afterall, if Washington politicians are in-the-know, if they are part of the exclusive group reserved for 535 Americans, not including members of staffs, then would not they have known what Gingrich was doing and possibly have engaged in like-activities?

Thus, the people's suspicions could have been validated by the House Leader being criminally prosecuted. It would have proved, to reiterate, the House must be full of felons since the House accepted Gingrich as its leader.

And, let us not forget that in spite of his lying and admissions, not only did the House keep Gingrich as leader but we never heard any type of protest from the Senate.

But, President Clinton is still being investigated for alleged wrong-doings when he was Governor of Arkansas. Doesn't that disprove the writer's thinking?

No. Instead, it supports his contention that deals are made between the parties, deals made in the attempt to not only falsely increase the public's faith in politicians but also to direct the future of the political structure in Washington.

Kenneth Starr has now spent well over 30 million dollars in the investigation of President Clinton's involvement in the Whitewater situation. There has not been one shred of evidence found supporting Mr. Clinton had any involvement whatsoever. And, yet, the investigation goes on. It would seem to the writer that, let's say, the first ten million should have produced some sort of evidence. But, it didn't.

Actually, with the staff Starr has, with the resources at his fingertips and the people available to go over the savings and loans books, the case should have been settled in less than a month.

We're not talking about one man doing all the footwork but hundreds of manhours weekly. So, either Mr. Clinton was totally innocent of any wrong-doing or Starr and his staff are completely incompetent.

Let's presume first that Mr. Clinton is innocent. Now, comes a 'what-if'. What if the Republican party knew that Mr. Clinton was innocent within the first month of the investigation?

It might appear to most of the public that politicians in Washington are striving to make sure their own house is clean. For example, "My gosh, they are investigating the President of the United States. They must be a bunch of people with very high levels of integrity."

What if Starr and his staff are incompetent? If evidence could not be detected withing a month or so, then surely the powers to be in Washington would have realized there wasn't any evidence to be found or that the investigators must not know what they are doing.

If thought to be incompetent, then wouldn't staff people, including Starr, have been told to complete the investigation? Why keep paying for incompetency?

Tax payers do all the time but it wouldn't look very good for people in government to have it made public that a leading governmental investigator was incompetent and had to be fired.

But, what if Starr was competent? What if Republicans demanding the investigation were told there wasn't any evidence to support the contentions of the Clinton's having any involvement in Whitewater? Could a mutually beneficial deal be made with the Democratic party, including President Clinton?

Here's the deal. "Look, we know that the president was not involved in any illegal activity. But, we also know that the public has great distrust of us."

"We also know Starr will not find anything that remotely indicates the president had any involvement in Whitewater or any other illegal matter. But, we also know keeping an investigation alive will show the people that we are concerned about trust and corruption in Washington politicians."

"Here is our proposal. We keep the investigation going for appearance's sake. We know you are innocent but we also know it could help us all to establish trust.

Thus, we all gain, the president because of increased support and faith in him and, the Republican Party because we appear to be concerned to the degree that we will take on the President."

But, Clinton became a second-term president. Would the Republicans have wanted that? To that the writer does not have an answer because he can't see the future effects of Clinton's second term.

But, he does know that the eventual opponent of Clinton became Dole, a man the public knew as the leader in Washington who was nearly always pushing through the hated enemy of the people - tax increases.

Even his own party members were well-aware of Dole's tendency to, as was once stated by either Kemp or Gingrich, that Dole "never met a tax hike he never liked."

Actually, Kemp was often at odds with Dole and, yet, he became Dole's running mate, purely a political ploy by Dole and the Republican Party in the attempt to pick up votes by having Kemp as a running mate.

Many people believe as the writer does, that it is extremely hard for basic enemies, including political enemies, to work together well for the common good. Thus, rather than gaining in votes, the Dole ticket probably lost votes.

Plus, the writer asked many people at random what they thought of Dole. The answer was always the same - they didn't trust him. Most added they at least knew what Clinton was like.

Granted, it was not a scientific poll but one sees reports on newscasts that are based on not much more but lead the public to believe in certain ways.

Was the nomination of Dole intentional in order to cause Clinton to win the presidency? Was it part of a long-range political plan? What would be the reasons for such a move? Who knows but isn't it intriquing and mentally stimulating to think about?

You see, we don't actually know the long-range plans of Washington long-term politicians and other federal government organizations. We do know many organizations, such as the CIA, concentrate on long-range effects of certain acts and plan around the projected effects on a world-wide basis.

We know there is much going on behind closed doors in Washington. What we don't know is exactly to what degree the parties plan their moves, including the possibility that long-range planning involves both parties working together for mutually beneficial reasons. Perhaps it all enters into the realm of world politics.

As an example, the question of government involvement in the assassination of President John Kennedy never seems to die. It has never been satisfactorily resolved in the minds of many people, including the writer's.

Was it a plot of people in government? If so, what was the reasoning that led to the demise of a popular president? What earthly national or world purpose did it serve to assassinate Kennedy and allow Lyndon Johnson, or those following him, to become president?

Currently, it is known that President Clinton and the Democratic Party received contributions from foreigners. It is also well-known that contributions are meant to influence the recepients.

But, do Republicans really want to focus on that? I wouldn't think so. It could damage their image as well as the Democratic Party plus it might open a great big can of worms.

Thus, it is highly probable the investigation of the current administration soliciting funds from the White House will eventually reveal that it was done legally or based on "thinking" the solicitations were done legally. Simply a mistake and no more than that.

Or, that the law concerning solicitations from federal property is out-dated and that all, including Congress and the public, agree with Jay Leno, that "the man lives in the White House. What's he supposed to do - go to a phone booth?"

Needless to say, the Republicans won't want to upset the apple cart to the degree that it can't be righted easily. They really don't want an investigation of all contributions and the corruption in politics which might follow.

But, a show of wanting to stop the corruption would help their system, including both of the major parties and how and why huge contributions and benefits are obtained. This would help establish increased a false sense of public trust in its elected officials. And, no one will actually be hurt.

Do such dealings take place? With the schemes that have been revealed by people from the inside, with the dealings made in the justicial system, with the lack of higher officials being prosecuted for what would be criminal offenses if they were in the private sector, with the deals that are made concerning bills and the like, isn't it rather hard to think otherwise?

Wow! Talk about timing. The writer just heard on ABC's Sunday edition of Good Morning America at about 8:20 AM, October 19th, 1997, that over two million dollars ($2,000,000) was contributed last year by China with the planned intent of influencing Congress.

The FBI knew of the plan and warned Congress.

The contributions were made and accepted, contributions that were intended to influence Congress but we never heard of it until now. And, guess what? All the contributions were made legally!! without any protest or the contributions even made public. This is in spite of Mr. Clinton having received contributions from a foreign entity and the Republicans' outcry and allegation that the contribution was illegally obtained since it was done on federal property.

Correct the writer if he is wrong but doesn't Congress meet on federal property? Since they gained knowledge of the contributions on federal property, since the contributions were negotiated for and received on federal property, aren't they equally guilty of violating the same 1800's law as Mr. Clinton has been alleged to do?

Now, that, Ladies and Gentlemen, smacks exactly of Congress making deals between the parties since all of Congress gained by accepting the contributions. Thus, no outcry from either party. Case closed.

Special Addendum: It may seem as if the impeachment of President Clinton invalidated the above speculation concerning a deal between Republican leaders and the White House. However, he was not found guilty. Why not?

He clearly lied and did so under oath in a court of law. Obstructing justice is an impeachable offense which should have resulted in his removal from office. Why wasn't he?

Some people will think the continued investigation into matters not related to Whitewater by Starr invalidates the above speculation.

However, I think the Republican Party let Starr go on for too long, that too much money was spent, with the result being they could have reneged on the original deal and pursued President Clinton with a vengence. Hence, Jones and Lewinsky.

The party had to prove the money, more than 40 million, wasn't wasted by Starr and his Republican backers. The only way to do that was to get something on President Clinton that would stick.

The means of doing so was what I will always believe to be a conspiracy between Starr, Republican leadership, and the women who became world famous. A lot more on this in 1998 articles.

But, when cornered by the public outcry for Clinton and against the Republican Party and its leadership(?), the impeachment decision was to acquit. To have done otherwise would have ruined the party in the eyes of the majority that wanted Mr. Clinon left alone and in office.

And, regardless of all else, Ladies and Gentlemen, this clearly shows the distrust this American loyalist has in our government and the people now responsible for it.