The spectacular collapse of Enron is like a trapdoor that has tumbled open to reveal how big business, finance, and politics in America really work. Closed-door sessions and clandestine dealings, say many political observers, reveal the true nature of a system dominated by dollars and deceit.

The Enron debacle is not isolated to one company, however, nor is it limited to one party. Enron may simply be a poster child for a perverted system that allows corporate interests to exert colossal influence over elected officials. "Enronomics," analysts warn, runs on a well-oiled track of unlimited campaign spending where special interests need only present wish lists to those whose coffers they've enriched to find their dreams fulfilled. This so-called "wealth barrier" can restrict civic participation by low-income citizens and communities of color.

• Enron distributed some $6 million to both Democrat and Republican members of Congress last year. 71 of 100 sitting Senators and nearly half of the House can list Enron among their financial backers.
  
  
• Federal campaign contributions totaled $3 billion in 2000 - 80% from the wealthiest one-quarter of 1%.
  
  
• The parties outspent the candidates themselves in the 2000 presidential election: $81 to $71 million.
  
  
• Party spending on a mere 48 House races in 2000 totaled $48 million - a third of which went to just 6 races.

This week the Shays-Meehan bill will hit the House floor. It would prohibit parties and federal candidates from accepting soft money, the limitless and unregulated funds raised by political parties ostensibly to be used for party building (38 cents on the soft dollar goes to TV, radio, and direct mail). Growing numbers of reform proponents support a "Clean Election" system, already an option in four states, whereby a candidate raises small sums of money - often $5 - to be matched by the state. Advocates say that this alternative frees candidates from the private money chase and allows elected officials to act in the common interest without fear or favor.

Can public officials who depend on private donations impartially oversee those same institutions? What can be done to ensure that legislators act in behalf of the common interest rather than special interests?