The left firmly believes that all wealth is the property of "the people" (read: the government) and that therefore taxes that are not paid are somehow money the government has "lost" or, even more bizarrely, "spent." It is of course my opinion that every nickel kept out of Washington is a victory, even if it remains in the hands of the lousiest private businessman. But, leave that aside for now.

It is of course naive to assume that contributions to politicians are not given without at least the hope of some favor in return.

Some corporations are simply trying to keep the government from draining them dry, or passing laws against them. These corporations are, for all intents and purposes, paying "protection money," to keep the thugs from throwing bricks through their windows. This is simple self-defense.

As an example of this, Microsoft, which spent only about $256,000 in political contributions in 1996, was hauled before the Inquisition, and "showed the instruments of torture." Threatened with destruction, Microsoft has "seen the light," and acknowledged who really calls the shots in this country. Currently, Microsoft is spending many millions of dollars on contributions and lobbyists. Before he was attacked, Bill Gates had little interest in politics. Some people may eventually regret getting him involved.

Other corporations are looking for special favors: actual subsidies (as opposed to just less taxation), rules bent in their favor, or bricks thrown through the windows of their competitors. These are more accurately characterized as "bribes."

Archer Daniels Midland is a great example of this, as are the Microsoft competitors who pushed the antitrust suits. This is true "corporate welfare," although the left likes to incorrectly lump tax cuts into this category.

The left's favorite answer to this problem is government financing of campaigns, which takes power to finance campaigns away from corporations and puts it in the hands of the people running for re-election. This is, of course, a recipe for dictatorship, or at least a government comprised 100 percent of career politicians. And anyone who thinks that some way won't be found to "cook" this system as well has not been paying attention to history.

The real answer to corporate influence on the political process is simple, but anathema to the left:

Separate the government from the business realm the same way as it is separated from the church, and for the same reasons.

On the last page of "Atlas Shrugged," Judge Narragansett is adding a phrase to a proposed Constitution: "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production or trade."

If the government's controlling influence was not entwined throughout even the most minimal business activity, like cancer cells throughout the organs of a terminal patient, there would be no need or desire to try to influence them. The near-limitless power of Washington to control the fate of corporations is why the money is flowing in.

One reason there is resistance in Washington to a flat or sales tax replacing the income tax is that the politicians know full well that the Byzantine tax code is their primary weapon to squeeze "contributions" from the nation. The following would be a good start:

- Replace (or just eliminate) the income tax.

- Begin removing regulations on free trade

- Get government tentacles out of the private sector.

"When the legislature controls buying and selling, the first thing to be bought and sold will be legislators."