(MONEY Magazine) – Ordinary Americans are prohibited from climbing Mount Rushmore, where the faces of four great Presidents are carved in granite. But this September, just before the Senate began debating campaign finance reform, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) led a group of supporters, including 21 representatives of industries as diverse as airlines, financial services, telecommunications and tobacco, up the mountain that's been called the "Shrine of Democracy." Taking Washington's traditional brie-and-Chablis fund raiser to unusual heights, Daschle pulled in $105,000 for his re-election campaign and for his party during that weekend trip to his state's Black Hills. In return, the contributors not only got to perch at the top of a monument off limits to most mortals, but they also won access to the second most powerful politician in the Senate, a man who wields enormous influence over their industries' futures and their own fortunes.

That cash-driven coziness was not exactly what our forefathers had in mind when they spoke of a government of, by and for the people. Increasingly, however, the soaring cost of congressional races, weak campaign finance laws and potentially fat returns on contributors' donations have conspired to give big-spending corporations and wealthy individuals unprecedented access to Washington lawmakers, putting the givers in a prime position to influence the laws the politicians make. "The founding fathers must be spinning in their graves," says Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), co-sponsor with Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) of the leading campaign finance reform bill.

Yet after weeks of high-profile hearings on presidential campaign finance abuses before a panel chaired by Sen. Fred Thompson (R-Tenn.) and heated debate on the Senate floor, the nation's legislators remain deadlocked over whether to fix the system--let alone how to do so. Worse, public interest in the subject is practically nil. For example, a recent poll found only 8% of Americans have been paying close attention to news about the Democrats' 1996 fund raising.

So why should you care about the way both parties finance their congressional campaigns? Because the subject isn't only about politics, it's about your money. Here are two examples of this year's tab:

--U.S. taxpayers will pay $47.7 billion for corporate tax breaks and subsidies. That's the conclusion of an exhaustive study by economist Robert Shapiro, vice president of the Progressive Policy Institute, a Washington think tank affiliated with the moderate Democratic Leadership Council. The total cost to the average American household in 1997: $483.

--Import quotas for sugar, textiles and other goods will raise consumer prices $110 billion, according to economist Gary Hufbauer of the nonprofit Council on Foreign Relations. Total cost per household: $1,114.

All of this comes amid rising public cynicism and apathy about politics. In a recent poll by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that studies how money influences politics, nearly four in five Americans said major contributors from outside U.S. representatives' districts have more access to the lawmakers than their constituents do. Also, about half of those polled believe that money has "a lot of influence on policies and legislation." Says Ann McBride, president of Common Cause, a political watchdog group: "It's no accident that last year's extraordinarily low voter turnout coincided with the highest-priced election in history."

During the 1995-96 election cycle, the Federal Election Commission (FEC) reports, candidates running for the House and Senate raised $791 million, 68% more than a decade earlier. Of the total, a quarter, or $201 million, came from political action committees (PACs) run by corporations, labor unions and other interest groups. Of the $444 million from individuals, only 36%, or $158 million, was given in amounts of less than $200.

Even more startling, the political parties collected an additional $264 million in so-called soft money in 1995-96, triple the amount they raised during the last presidential election campaign. While the law limits so-called hard-money contributions to candidates to $1,000 per election from individuals and $5,000 from PACs, there are no caps on soft money, which flows from corporations, unions and individuals in huge chunks. For example, according to Common Cause, in the last election cycle tobacco giant Philip Morris and its executives gave $2.5 million in soft money to the G.O.P., while the Communications Workers of America contributed $1.1 million to the Democratic Party. The FEC says soft money is supposed to be spent on "party building." But much of the cash finds its way into congressional and presidential races. Says McBride: "Soft money is clearly the most corrupting money in politics today."

Indeed, campaigning has mostly turned into a money chase. Last year, winning a Senate seat cost an average of $4.7 million, up 53% since 1986. Snagging a House seat ran $673,739, up 89%. Some veteran senators, including Paul Simon (D-Ill.) and Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), have cited their distaste for endlessly dialing for dollars as one reason they dropped out of politics. As for the current Capitol gang, says Charles Lewis, president of the Center for Public Integrity, a nonpartisan research group: "It's a misimpression to think all new members are innocents. Either they are millionaires or they are willing to sell their souls, or at least lease them, before they even set foot in Washington."

Of course, lawmakers often take positions out of principle. Other times, constituent or broader public interests dictate their votes. But the question remains: What role does money play in shaping legislation?

MONEY has found five instances where big money and bad bills collided, resulting in legislation that has--or may soon--cost taxpaying consumers like you dearly. (For more examples, see the table on page 132). We'll tell the tales and let you judge whether it's time for campaign finance reform.

FEAR OF FLYING

Why you may pay more for air travel: Early this year, Herb Kelleher, the tough-talking chief executive of Southwest Airlines, dropped to his knees in the office of U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel of New York City, the top Democrat on the powerful House Ways and Means Committee. "If you'll support the little guy against this measure," begged Kelleher, referring to a proposed new flight tax that would hurt discount carriers like his, "I'll give up Wild Turkey and cigarettes."

Though only half in jest, Kelleher's theatrics weren't enough to overcome the clout of the Big Seven airlines--American, Continental, Delta, Northwest, TWA, United and US Airways--who stood to gain from the new tax. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that during the 1995-96 election period, the Big Seven contributed $2.5 million in PAC money to candidates and soft money to both parties, almost three times what the airlines had given during the last election cycle. Among their biggest recipients was House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, where Delta is based, who took in $12,000 for his congressional campaign. Then in the first six months of this year, while Congress was debating the airline-tax bill, the big carriers kicked in another $640,000, including $6,000 more to the Speaker. By contrast, Texas-based Southwest and its small airline allies have contributed nothing to Gingrich and only $95,000 to congressional campaigns and the parties since 1995.

After a bruising Capitol Hill battle, the major carriers emerged with much of what they wanted, tucked into the 1997 tax act: a gradual reduction in the airline ticket tax from 10% to 7.5% plus a new $1 levy, rising to $3 in 2002, on each leg of a flight between takeoff and final landing. Many passengers who fly on regional carriers and discounters like Southwest emerged as losers, since those airlines tend to make more stops. For example, after the ticket-tax reduction and new segment fee are fully phased in, a family of four that flies on Southwest for $225 per person from Houston to Disney World, with a stop in New Orleans, will pay $25.50 in additional taxes.

For that, opponents say, the family can thank Gingrich, who broke a deadlock in the Ways and Means Committee over two warring proposals. One, backed by Southwest and Republican Jennifer Dunn of Washington, would have preserved the flat 10% ticket tax. The other, supported by the Big Seven and sponsored by Republican Michael ("Mac") Collins of Georgia, reduced the tax and imposed a segment fee.

"Let's settle this like adults and compromise in [the House-Senate] conference," Gingrich told Dunn, who agreed to shelve her proposal. The Senate sided with Southwest. But a House provision favorable to the big airlines won in the closed-door negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and Gingrich. Says a congressional aide whose boss backed Southwest: "We left it to Trent and Newt, and Newt fought harder." Campaign money was not a factor, insists the Speaker's press secretary, Christina Martin. Instead, she says, Gingrich was guided "by his experience, his vision and the will of his constituents and the Republican conference."

DANCE OF THE SUGARPLUM BARONS

Why you pay 25% too much for sugar: The next time you buy a bag of sugar, consider this: You are paying 40[cents] a pound, 10[cents] more than you should, because a handful of generous U.S. sugar magnates have managed to preserve their sweet deals for 16 years. Says Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla.), who led the bitter losing battle last year to dismantle the program of import quotas and guaranteed loans that props up domestic sugar prices, costing U.S. consumers $1.4 billion a year: "This is the poster child for why we need campaign finance reform."

The sultans of sugar are Alfonso ("Alfy") and Jose ("Pepe") Fanjul, Cuban emigre brothers whose Flo-Sun company, with headquarters in South Florida, produces much of the sugarcane in the U.S. The Fanjuls sprinkle more money over Washington than any other U.S. sugar grower. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, during the 1995-96 election cycle, when the sugar program was up for another five-year reauthorization, the Fanjul family, the companies they own and their employees gave $709,000 to federal election campaigns. Alfy served on President Clinton's Florida fund-raising operation, while Pepe co-chaired Republican presidential nominee Bob Dole's campaign finance committee. Overall during the past election cycle, the Center reports, U.S. sugar producers poured $2.7 million into federal campaign coffers, nearly 60% more than the $1.7 million given by industrial sugar users, including candy and cereal companies, who oppose price supports.

The sugar industry's investment appears to have paid off handsomely. At first, two conservative firebrands, Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla.) and Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), seemed to have enough votes to kill the price-support program. In the Senate, however, then-Majority Leader Dole, determined that nothing would hold up the 1996 farm bill, took a machete to amendments that threatened to topple it, including Gregg's, which died by 61 votes to 35.

In the House, the sugar program was saved after six original co-sponsors of the Miller amendment switched sides, killing it by 217 votes to 208. One defector, Texas Republican Steve Stockman, who was locked in a tight re-election race that he ultimately lost, received $7,500 in sugar contributions during 1995 and '96, including $1,000 on the day of the vote. Stockman did not return MONEY's phone calls. Another voting for big sugar, Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), now a U.S. senator, received $19,000 from sugar producers. New Jersey grows no sugar, but it is home to 870,000 Cuban Americans, whose votes Torricelli wanted for his Senate campaign. On the House floor, he argued that eliminating the program would drive up world prices, hurting domestic growers and helping foreign producers like Cuba. Said Torricelli: "We will lose the jobs and the money, and Fidel Castro's Cuba will reap the benefits."

POTENTIALLY FATAL ATTRACTION

Why you may be more vulnerable to harm from unapproved uses of medical devices, ranging from heart valves to surgical tools: The recent horror stories about Fen-Phen--a combination of Fenfluramine and Phentermine, which caused heart abnormalities in at least 100 people--is an example of the danger of using drugs for purposes other than those for which they were approved. Now there's a move in Congress to prohibit the Food and Drug Administration from requiring medical-device manufacturers to prove that off-label uses of their products are safe and effective. The proposal is part of sweeping Senate-passed legislation to speed FDA approval of drugs and medical devices.

Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Jack Reed (D-R.I.) sponsored an amendment, however, that would preserve the agency's authority to investigate a medical device if its label is "false or misleading." During the debate, Kennedy pointed with alarm to a still frame from a promotional film showing a needle, made by United States Surgical Corp., being used for two purposes--cancer biopsies, which the FDA has approved, and tumor removal, which it has not. Once the FDA realized that the company was promoting the needle for an unauthorized use, the agency required U.S. Surgical to include a label warning against removing tumors with the needle until it could prove that procedure to be safe and effective. Prohibiting the FDA from requiring such proof, Kennedy said, "will give unscrupulous companies a license to lie" and "put the health of American people at risk." Nonetheless, the Senate rejected the Reed-Kennedy amendment 65 to 35 and passed the bill.

One of Kennedy's principal opponents was his friend Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut, where $1.1 billion (annual revenues) U.S. Surgical employs 3,200 people. "This company is not engaged in promoting unapproved uses," Dodd told his fellow senators. Most people listening to the debate may not have known, however, that Dodd had pocketed $107,648 in campaign money from 1991 through 1996 from the drug and medical-device industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Then during the first six months of 1997, when the FDA reform bill was under consideration, Dodd took in another $24,000 from the industry, which included $5,000 from U.S. Surgical. In addition, six of that company's executives kicked in $4,750 the day before he co-sponsored the bill. Says Dodd's press secretary Marvin Fast: "There's absolutely no connection between the money he receives and the way he votes. Sen. Dodd has been on FDA reform for years."

The FDA bill's Senate supporters, however, have been stalled by the Clinton Administration, which vowed to veto the legislation if it included the restraints on the agency's ability to investigate off-label uses of medical devices. As a result of the veto threat, the House passed a bill retaining the FDA's authority in cases where an off-label use of a device could prove harmful. But as MONEY went to press, the two versions were being reconciled, so it was uncertain how this tale would end.

WASHINGTON POWER PLAY

How politically charged utilities are short-circuiting federal deregulation efforts that could cut your electric bill: If you could shop around for power instead of buying it from a single local utility, you could cut as much as 24% off your monthly electric bill, according to the Department of Energy. For a family whose monthly electric bills average $100, that would mean yearly savings of $288, nearly three months of free power. But while states from California to New Hampshire are moving to increase competition among utilities, two deep-pocketed and determined adversaries have thus far stymied federal deregulation efforts.

Those fighting for rapid deregulation include large commercial electricity users, such as Anheuser-Busch, General Motors, Texaco and major retailers, as well as low-cost power producers and marketers like Houston's Enron. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that during the 1995-96 election cycle, as Congress began considering deregulation, the major commercial power users contributed $7.8 million to congressional candidates and the parties, while Enron and its employees gave another $1.2 million.

On the other side of the power war are old-line, monopolistic utilities led by the Edison Electric Institute (EEI), their major Washington lobby. Their big fear: that so-called stranded costs for investments in nuclear power plants and other projects they pass on to consumers in the rates they pay will make it difficult to compete with low-cost energy producers under deregulation. During the 1995-96 election period, the old-line utilities contributed $7.7 million to the candidates and the parties. In addition, the Institute assessed its members $3 million to pay for a lobbying campaign against rapid federal deregulation.

So far, that effort seems to be working. After 14 hearings on deregulation, Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has still not introduced a comprehensive bill. Instead he is backing a narrower measure sponsored by Sen. Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.) that would help the old-line utilities by letting them compete in any nonutility business, without allowing other power companies to enter the older firms' local electricity markets. Murkowski told MONEY he prefers the states to take the lead in deregulating local markets. He maintains: "The states are more innovative and can be more responsive to consumers." Since 1995, Murkowski has received $65,499 from the old utilities, 20% of his total PAC receipts. He argues: "It's not uncommon, as chairman of a committee, to get such contributions." The other side has given him only $8,500.

What will these power plays mean to you? Says Charlie Higley, a senior policy analyst at Public Citizen, a consumer rights group: "Generally we are concerned that legislators will strike a deal where the utilities will get the taxpayer to foot the bill for their stranded costs, the big industrial users will get all the breaks, and residential and small business customers will get no relief or, worse yet, higher costs."

A MIDSUMMER'S NIGHT SCHEME

How Wall Street and Silicon Valley could undercut investor rights: In the summer of 1995, a coalition of accounting, securities and high-tech firms persuaded Congress to pass sweeping legislation limiting securities litigation that MONEY had warned could severely restrict investors' abilities to bring successful class-action suits for securities fraud. Though the Securities and Exchange Commission has concluded that it is too early to tell whether the Securities Litigation Reform Act has seriously eroded investors' rights, the same group of industries is now promoting legislation that would virtually ban investors from bringing class-action suits in state courts involving nationally traded securities. Warns Barbara Roper, the Consumer Federation of America's securities law expert: "The big risk for investors is that the federal law will end up restricting meritorious cases and that we'll lose the states as an alternative venue for them." The possible result: Wronged investors not only could find such cases harder to win, but they also may be prevented from filing suits in the first place.

Democrat Anna Eshoo--who with Silicon Valley in her district has received $78,296 from accounting, high-tech and securities firms--already has lined up more than 100 House co-sponsors of legislation that would have the 1995 federal securities legislation pre-empt state securities laws. "Plaintiffs' lawyers are doing an end run around the 1995 act by going to state court," says Eshoo. "Who loses? The consumer, because the threat of state suits means companies are not giving consumers the kind of financial information they need or want to make informed decisions." In October, Chris Dodd, Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and 11 other senators sponsored a similar bill. Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Arthur Levitt told MONEY that he expects such legislation to pass next year.

In 1995 and '96, securities and accounting firms, as well as high-tech companies, which frequently are the targets of securities fraud lawsuits, flooded Congress and both parties with $29.6 million in campaign money, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. By contrast, the Center estimates the trial lawyers association, the biggest critic of the legislation, gave $3.1 million. (The total from all trial lawyers is unknown.) Says one top Democratic congressional aide: "This is completely money-driven, special-interest legislation that we would never even be looking at if there were campaign finance reform. Most congressmen are not being bombarded with requests from local constituents to pre-empt state securities laws."

WHAT CONGRESS SHOULD DO

Here are six changes recommended by advocates of campaign finance reform:

--Ban soft money. This is the heart of the McCain-Feingold bill to improve the way campaigns are funded. The prohibition would shut down the easiest way corporations, unions and the wealthy have to buy access to Congress and influence legislation.

--Limit PAC contributions. Congress ought to ban PACs from giving money to the campaigns of members of committees that govern the PACs' industries or their interests.

--Offer cut-rate TV time. Candidates who agree to reject PAC money might get free or discounted TV time.

--Reward small contributors. Tax credits for donations of $200 or less might stimulate more people to give. Says Kent Cooper, executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics: "It's critical that we build a wider base of small contributors."

--Streamline disclosure. Candidates should be required to file their campaign receipts and expenditures electronically to the Federal Election Commission. That would enable it to post the data to its Website (www.fec.gov) more quickly.

--Toughen election laws and enforcement. Congress must make the six-member Federal Election Commission, typically half Republican and half Democrat, more effective. The panel needs authority to impose civil penalties, a bigger enforcement budget (now only $31.7 million) and a seventh member to break ties.

What can you do? Write to congressional leaders Gingrich, Lott and McCain, as well as your own U.S. representative, senators and President Clinton. Tell them you want campaign finance reform that will restore accountability and integrity to federal elections and the government. And while you're at it, tell them you'd like the right to climb Mount Rushmore--without giving Tom Daschle $5,000 of your hard-earned money.

Reporter associates: Gerald Burstyn, Jim Frederick and Michael Powe