The issue is whether a conflict of interest occurs when a company makes a large financial contribution to the campaign of a particular political candidate when the outcome of the race will have a serious impact on the company"s future. The root of the problem is this: if it is true that expensive advertising and public relations campaigns (images rather than ideas) have an undue influence on the outcome of elections, then large campaign contributions from companies with vested interests in elections" outcomes necessarily have an undue influence on the outcome of those elections. Should corporations be free to influence the political process in this way, or does their freedom subvert the average citizen"s monopoly on influencing the process with his or her vote?.

             Advocates of campaign reform want to forbid big companies this kind of freedom, while advocates of the status quo claim that Americans are too smart to be swayed by messages conveyed through advertising. The fact that the country is essentially one of consumers who are consistently influenced by advertising in virtually every product category imaginable should give us pause when considering the argument that, for some mysterious unexplained reason, the disbelief they are willing to suspend for the sake of Calvin Klein or the Atkins Diet remains unsuspended in the case of Bush or Gore.

             Since even common people have good ideas, it seems strange that almost all of the candidates who get taken the most seriously emerge from one or the other of the two parties. Someone other than party big wigs should occasionally win a presidential election, a hitherto anonymous Mr. Deeds for instance, but Mr. Deeds would find some difficulties even getting his name on a presidential election ballot.

             The Internet"s power to disseminate information and promote communication and virtual networking could change the way elections happen in the United States.