Legal graft: There are worse blots than Blagojevich

It has always intrigued that only the most ghastly levels of graft catch our eye and ensnare our interest, while throughout, and bubbling underneath, are more pervasive -- and in some ways more insidious -- forms of corruption.

These days, for instance, the entire world is all too aware of the psychotic Rod Blagojevich's outlandish exploits in the political sewers of Illinois. Government by under-the-table bartering; just pay up and you too can play, indeed you can play all you want and go as far as you like, depending on your financial enthusiasm.

Oh, the shame of it all, we cry. How was it that the normal course of dispassionate republican spirit and civic duty careened off the good-government tracks? Why this ... anomaly? Why this freakish Frankenstein of clubby corruption?

If only that were the case.

I'm wary of venturing into the land of hysterical hyperbole, but it seems to me there are far greater threats to the Republic than the likes of Roddy B.; in fact, the governor actually represents the upside of things. After all, the moron got caught, it's apparent that he was never close to not being caught, and now we're all obligatorily horrified. So much for that.

Meanwhile, however, the trading floor of perfectly legal graft is open for business each and every day -- and hardly anyone pays any attention except the traders themselves. "Good government" is bought and sold every hour, in its every aspect; and indeed it retains the laughable moniker of good government since its sewer is so publicly open.

This legal graft is, of course, Washington's system of political action committees and the financial contributions they make to federal pols.

Naturally "the system" has caps -- only by placing a public-relations lid on graft could the subterranean system itself be saved. But the caps -- $10,000 an election pop -- are a joke, especially when like-minded PAC after like-minded PAC can each flood the system with five-figure checks, not to mention $4,600 from each of their individually interested players.

Access, they say, is all that they're buying, which is even more of an insulting joke than the money itself.

And now that Washington is about to be run by a lot of new faces, the freely flowing cash is shifting -- which means that, by and large, old policy won't.

Yesterday the Politico ran an instructive story on all the money that's following our newly elected Congressional representatives into town. A small army of Republicans is gone, so replacement Dems are now awash in the cash from corporate PACs once exclusively reserved for the former.

Said, as just one example, a spokeswoman for Microsoft: "Our philosophy around political giving is based on helping candidates, primarily incumbent candidates." But should that incumbent get the electoral ax, then Microsoft is there -- post-election -- to help the successful challenger. "The fact of the matter is, that candidate won," she added.

At this point Microsoft's "philosophy" becomes an exceptionally pliable thing and the corporation literally banks on the hope that the new representative's philosophic structure is every bit as pliable.

The victorious challenger almost always has campaign debts to be paid, and what's more, from the minute of swearing in he or she immediately begins to fret about raising enough loot for a reelection bid. And although Microsoft, for one, is there to help, it is also, as the Politico notes, "hardly alone" ...

AT&T, the American Association for Justice (the trial lawyers' political action committee), the American Bankers Association, the American Hospital Association, Bank of America, Blue Cross Blue Shield, the Credit Union National Association, General Electric, the lobbying and law firm Holland & Knight, the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the National Multi Housing Council, Northwest Airlines, Qwest Corp., Wine & Spirits Wholesalers of America and U.S. Telecom are among those who have donated to victorious Democratic challengers since the election results were official.

You want change? Well, just try bucking what that list wants.

It'll get it, too, because the protection racket is nearly as old as the profession of political prostitution.

And it is all -- all of it -- perfectly legal.