IYB's topic of this morning's debate was reforming the current campaign funding methods in order to help deal with corruption in the current political system. After listening to the tape, the writer thought he had the few facts presented straight.

But, then, Meryl Comer, the mediator, stated that the Democrats had opposed reform in campaign funding in l994 and further that the GOP was going to introduce reform again this year. However, the debate being presented centered around the Democrats wanting reform while the GOP representative did not. Confusing to say the least.

In regards to IYB, a fact has been made clear, a fact leading to a conclusion not to politicians' nor to the producer of the show's liking.

One can gain knowledge from the debate panel each week but, too often, the knowledge gained is that politicians either don't know what they are talking about, or, they are lying to suit their own purposes or the purposes of the show, or, they say whatever is necessary to suit their special interests (which might be the show), or all are right (as each of the debators believes himself to be) in what they say.

However, all cannot be right since there are opposing views. At least one has to be giving his thoughts based on something other than what is written in black and white or accepted as being common knowledge. Thus, it has been very difficult to gather facts, not opinions, from the telecast.

The fact is one can gain in concrete knowledge but it takes a lot of energy trying to glean out a small amount. This has held true for many weeks of watching politicians debate different issues on IYB.

As an example, the Republican senator, Mitch McConnell, KY, denied the necessity of reform being needed and the Democrat, Senator Bill Bradley, New Jersey, along with the Common Cause representative, Donald Simon, felt reform was necessary.

As usual, there was a lot of rhetoric that didn't necessarily lead one to firm conclusions. In other words, one was left with a feeling of an inconclusive debate. One had to sift out what information he could from the telecast, much the same as when any debatable item is featured in newscasts.

As an added note to the main topic, what has been made clear by IYB is that staunch Republican and Democrats cannot work together on a continuing basis. Occassionally, the parties can agree. Hence, the passing of the Appropriations Bill and the Anti-Terrorist Bill through the House, the Senate, and the Oval Office. (One might speculate public opinion forced the Republican Party to go along with President Clinton's wishes on these two bills. To have done otherwise would have been political suicide for the party.)

One very clear fact was mentioned by Senator Bradley from New Jersey, the fact being the American public believes politics to be corrupt, that the public believes special interests groups do control politicians.

With these statements, Bradley's basis for supporting reform of campaign funding and getting rid of some of the corruption became clear. If not a political ploy, he wishes reform because the public believes reform to be necessary. However, it is far more likely it is a ploy rather than a heart-felt desire.

The debate, if you care to call it that, focused to an extent on 'soft money', money that has been contributed through checking off on income tax forms and put in a general campaign fund (at least, that is what the writer thought was meant).

Also debated were whether or not there should be limits placed on the amount of money that may be contributed and limiting individual expenditures during a compaign so as to equalize the money aspect of campaigning.

The Republican, Senator McConnell, denied any special interest favoring by members of the government as there was always complete disclosure of where contributions came from and what the contributions were intended for. Both he and the U.S. Department of Commerce representative, Mr. Richard Lesher, denied corruption.

But, then, why do you suppose Mr. Lesher qualified his belief by stating that there wasNOT as much corruption as many people think.

At that point, Mr. Simon begged to differ with Mr. Lesher by stating the majority of the American public do think the system is corrupt. At that point, the writer would have asked Mr. Lesher if the system was not corrupt, why do many politicians believe there needs to be reform?

Or, he might have asked are statements of reform being necessary just a political maneuver? Can one ever be absolutely certain which way it is. Remember, we are dealing with politicians.

The writer is just an ordinary citizen trying to understand our political system. He has had time to talk to people, other ordinary people, and has gained a great deal of insight from their thoughts.

The truth is that the writer cannot name one friend or one person he has interviewed that felt politicians and politics are not corrupt. Granted, his informality and lack of proper randomizing would poo-poo away his findings but try it yourself.

Ask the people you encounter for a week if they believe our politicians are corrupt. Ask a thousand - or ten thousand. Special Addendum: In four years, not one person has stated a belief in politicians being honest and having integrity, of Washington politics not being corrupt.

The common belief is that politicians are controlled by large, powerful special interest groups. Also, power is money. It would be difficult for anyone to deny that. If one has a lot of money, one has power.

Most believe the power of big money to be above the level of the constitution and any legislation now in effect, in other words, above the law. Also, with the two combined, money and politics, corruption is sure to follow.

This belief is the most often expressed opinion when discussing politicians and their behaviors. And, there must be something to it since, way back in l901, one of Teddy Roosevelt's primary goals was to enact campaign financing reform. And, as you might be aware of, very little has been done since to correct the potential of politicians being influenced by money and power.

Disclosure was briefly discussed during the debate. The writer believes it was first brought up by Mr. Lesher. It seems to the writer disclosure serves only to let the politicians know exactly who has been scratching their backs.

Completely anonymous contributions would be the only way to be more sure of the money not having an effect on a politician in his vote for a certain bill. That would be difficult to establish but not impossible.

Or, one must side with Senator Bradley's idea that a common fund be established that is divided between the candidates after the primaries or around labor day. This way a contributor would not be able to direct his contribution to a specific candidate nor would the candidate know who the money came from.

Even limiting contributions, as was done in l974 to $5,000, did not insure that corruption through lobbying could not happen. Before the writer became agitated enough to begin writing about, and trying to find the truth, in politics, he had seen several cases of corruption and politicians receiving favors from big business, such as vacations that were paid for.

Afterall, there are many other means of manipulating weaknesses in politicians and influencing decisions other than direct monetary contributions. Many, many perks can come to politicians from those special interest groups they take care of, legislatively speaking.

The writer would like to know exactly how elected government officials do become wealthy. If the politicians could save a maximum of their incomes, were in Congress long enough, and if their investments always paid off, then wealth on a small scale could be achieved.

The question then is whether or not the acquired wealth, or existing wealth, in the case of those coming from wealthy families, has any bearing on the way they vote for a particular bill, such as the minimum wage bill currently being debated.

With a potential change in perspective that is usually the result of tremendous financial growth, isn't it quite possible that voting decisions are affected? The wealthy simply do not think like the guy struggling to get by from paycheck to paycheck.

As regular people see the politicians getting richer and richer, it is natural to believe they are corrupt and guided by the power of money. Then, again, it may be that the system, as designed, is self-corrupting.

Wouldn't that be ironic? Truth, justice, and the purity of our democratic system overpowered by the almighty dollar controlling what is truth, justice, and purity within the system.

And, maybe, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is much closer to the truth than many would have us think.


You will note at this time in my studies that I never understood "democracy" verses a "Republic". We are a Republic in which elected individuals serve as representatives of the people. They then perform the duties of the central government as authorized and limited by the Constitution.

In a 'democracy', the people vote on every piece of legislation. Remember this as it is very important in understanding the depth of deception by the Federal Government.