The news item this morning says the Iowa Legislature may do something about the financing of political campaigns here. Unfortunately it took the court system to begin the process of discussion between the two parties. The GOP has enjoyed a breathtaking stroke of luck. Having just lost the central fundraising plum of the political process, the governorship, the party was made more comfortable last week when a federal judge struck down portions of the state's ethics laws on vagueness and first amendment grounds.

The ruling involves a ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns and creates the prospects of corporate dollars legally entering the political arena. The ruling ends years of hustle by both parties to conceal the location of phone banks (harder to do in the caller-ID era) and the interests behind the names of the donors on checks. It ends the need for shakedowns of subordinates at major companies, in which the boss says "Hi, I'm having a little get together for the Congressman Sunday and I want you to contribute . . . " and the employee typically reflects deeply about his/her political convictions for about 15 seconds before writing out a check.

The speaker of the Iowa House, a Republican, wants to negotiate anew the terms of the dial-for-dollars campaign wars. He wants both parties to give up something, hinting that a new ban on corporate dollars might be accepted if the Democrats give up the crown jewel of their fundraising efforts - labor PAC dollars gathered from the wallets of workers who only sometimes support the politicians to whom those dollars travel.

The Speaker's idea sounds okay until you realize that, leaving party labels aside, there will always be a political organization that represents established business and financial interests and works for those who have the financial means to write checks of $250 and up to candidates. (I use this number because donors at this level are the only ones the federal election commission feels need to have their names published on the Internet. Anybody giving less apparently doesn't have a great deal of influence.)

One real question in American democracy has always been: Can we sustain political representation for those who have no means to contribute to candidates, or to anyone else for that matter, because they're too busy getting by on just enough? The money taken in by PACs allows the support of many small donors to be gathered and flexed in one big block in favor of a candidate. Despite this system's serious flaws, it has preserved the interests of the small donors across the spectrum, whether they are anti-abortion or pro-worker.

The corporate-driven finance system about to strike Iowa will assure that the small donors are squeezed out in BOTH political parties in favor of large donors who will fight over their liberal and conservative differences, to be sure, but will be courted by candidates and parties almost exclusively. One $25,000 contribution from a sympathetic corporation could knock out 100 phone calls for $250 for your average congressional candidate. If you were running, which would you choose? Already disaffected voters will be even tougher to reach.

And don't have any illusions that a candidate could swear off corporate money and still win. Not a challenger, anyway. The only way to jack the name recognition up is to get on TV early and heavy. This is increasingly true even at the state legislative level.

I have this vision of candidate vehicles lined up in parades at campaign time covered front to back by sponsor stickers a la NASCAR. And now, the Senator, in the Prudential/AEGON sponsored Chevrolet, brought to you by Alliant Utilities . . .

John Hedgecoth has dreams of suiting up for a future 500.