In years past, the democratic process has stressed the importance of every person of legal age voting for their representatives in government. Afterall, without voters electing their chosen representatives, the democratic process begins disintegrating.

But, isn't democracy a great deal more than just voting for representatives to serve in state capitols and in Washington? It is fine to stress voting but it doesn't necessarily mean that one is really meeting the demands of a democratic society. True, faces in Washington and state capitols have changed and will change but the overall picture has stayed the same.

As a matter of fact, the old cliche', "it's your duty to vote", may lead people away from the activities that a democracy relies on, active citizens who are knowledgeable and do everything possible to get their elected officials to do as the they think best.

The vote, just the vote, doesn't result in changes in the process and assure that democracy is of the people and by the people. It does, however, allow people to say, "Well, I did my part. I voted."

The uttering or thought of that statement means the door has been opened to one of the biggest cop-outs that exists, a cop-out that certainly undermines the principles of democracy as it easily leads to the "Well, I did my duty as a citizen and voted; what happens now is out of my hands" attitude.

Without actual activity and involvement in government, e.g., writing letters, calling, whatever it takes to get an elected official's attention, governing is not by the people; it is, instead, accomplished by a very small percentage of our population.(How small will be in an article from early 1999.)

"It doesn't affect me so why should I worry about it?" Talk about undermining the principles necessary for a true democracy. But, this concept is taught to nearly all of us, possibly inadvertently, but taught, nevertheless. The writer remembers hearing it for nearly all of his fifty years.

A very real example of the effects citizen involvement can have is MADD, Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

Hundreds of people have been killed due to drunk drivers. But, it took one mother to start a nation-wide effort at becoming more strict with drunk drivers and fighting to get done what she thought should be done.

Involvement was the key to getting stronger and stronger litigations against driving drunk, along with more severe punishments for driving under the influence of alcohol.

Until that time, apathy or the thought of it 'not affecting me so why worry about it prevailed'. Once the right person was affected, changes did come about. And, the changes didn't rely on the masses voting but, instead, on action from the masses essentially forcing legislators to take action.

How about the process of lobbying? Lobbyists are even registered. Why do we even allow lobbying to exist? Lobby- ist, afterall, are fighting for legislation that favors their particular client or company. They accomplish their task by promising campaign funds and other benefits. What these want isn't necessarily for the benefit of the masses but is always self-serving for the lobbyists' clients.

And, as long as the masses allow it, lobbying will continue unchecked. One might read about the need for controlling it or that a politician seeking election or re-election in Washington is against it, but will it change?

For certain, until the right person is offended, it will remain as it is because Washington politicians NOT only condone it, but are actively involved.

Take Bob Dole. He has a list of corporations that will fly him around for the price of a first-class ticket. It was estimated that the value to him during the first nine months of l995 was $273,588 (Ammo, Vol. 29, No. 5).

How about his relationship with the oil industry, including the Koch family? They helped keep Dole's campaign funds rolling in through the years by personally donating $245,000 into the Dole coffer.

The question is whether or not Dole has based any of his decisions on what corporations want, corporations that have helped him financially or otherwise, that is. Does he make deals using the old 'you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours' principles? One can be certain that the companies Dole deals with expect favors in return but does he actually return the favors?

One would think so in that he New York Times has revealed how Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich preserved a $1.8 billion subsidy for the ethanol industry which promotes mixing a corn-based alcohol with gasoline to produce gasohol.

The clincher is that Dwayne Andreas, head of Archer-Daniels-Midland, a huge agribusiness which dominates the ethanol industry, is Dole's largest financial patron according to UAW's Ammo.

Any citizen with knowledge of human behavior would presume, first, any company doing favors for politicians expect favors in return. Otherwise, why bother?

Second, if the politician wishes to keep the contributions (or whatever the favors were), coming in, he will return the favors through proposed legislation or how he votes for various bills in Congress. Otherwise, there would not be any market for lobbyists, the amount of money or favors they direct to politicians, or for corporations to contribute anything.

Just food for thought but guess who the most effective Republican fund-raiser is. You guessed it; Dole is. Does that also mean that the best fund-raiser is also thought to be the easiest to manipulate and control? It makes sense as it would be ridiculous to contribute to a person's campaign that could not be manipulated and controlled.

Presuming that lobbyists do affect politicians, then it is obvious that government is affected by lobbyists. Logically, as soon as the first lobbyist affected a decision of the first politician, democracy began being undermined.

If favors are done for the various businesses that actively pursue getting politicians 'in their pockets', so to speak, then the possibility exists of pursuant legislation being directly against the masses.

Lobbyists are alive and well as was seen by most Americans on various newscasts shown on or about August 28th this year. They were lined up waiting to get on the Presidential yacht. One actually complained that he would be donating $1.5 million and couldn't even get on the yacht. Guess that tells us all the amount of money actually involved in lobbying is tremendous.

Being a presidential election year, we are going to hear and read a great deal about 'campaign reform' and the necessity to act and do away with the influence held by major campaign contributors, the so-called "soft-money" people. This writer has heard the same arguments for the necessity to reform for the past 40 years but, guess what? Reform has not occurred.

Let's really put soft money and lobbying into perspective. Large campaign contributions have only one goal, the goal of assuring that legislation is self-serving to the business or individual making the contribution. It is that clear and simple.

If the reader needs it phrased another way, maybe more simply put, soft money, lobbying, is buying the power of any politician on the receiving end of the contributions.

The Republican Party received (Common Cause figures) $75.8 million from January, l995, to June of l996 and, the Democratic Party, $65.1 million in the first 18 months of the current election cycle.

This money, and who knows what other favors (see Dole above), results in the creation of special interest groups. Politicians, their integrity, and their power have, in essence, gone to the highest bidders.

Sadly, even though the necessity for reform will be talked about by both parties since both are certain the public is concerned about special interest groups, it is not likely either party will take any action other than those that have been taken in the past.

And, guess what those actions were. Yep, special interest groups have been historically favored and continue to prosper.

Actual campaign reform has been nothing more than a topic of rhetoric for politicians spoutedget them additional votes. And, of course, both parties will use the concept of campaign funding reform for the same reason in their current campaigns.

How does this all tie together? First of all, campaign reform, including the loss of lobbying power and the power of soft money, is never going to happen until the people of this nation force the change to occur.

Politicians simply are not going to give up their sources of revenue. This means they will keep giving favors for favors given. This is human nature at work and they will continue to damn the ordinary populace.

Second, until enough people from the everyday sector get involved in government, involved to a much greater degree than simply voting, the people will never have the power to force the necessary changes.

People must get fired up over the wealthy getting wealthier (including politicians who are being influenced) because of legislation that does not focus on the best interests of the majority of the American people and our nation as a whole.

Third, it is absolutely a necessity that the people demand that politicians do their jobs with the interest of the people at heart. If any politician serves a special interest group, then that politician must be replaced. The very concept, special interest group, as related to campaign funding and other favors to politicians, must be eliminated from our political vocabulary.

Otherwise, Ladies and Gentlemen, we are not living in a democracy in which governing is by the many but, instead, in an oligarchy in which governing is by the few.


Special Addendum: The 105th Congress, headed by N. Gingrich, along with his cronnies in the Republican Party, did away with campaign reform legislation in mid-1998 by not allowing it to even come to the floor of the House for debate.