In recent months, investigations into the questionable practices of well-connected GOP lobbyists like Jack Abramoff and Brent Wilkes (of Randy "Duke" Cunningham fame) have begun to shed light on the culture that the Republican Party has fostered in Washington over its decade of control of Congress. But these two shamed lobbyists are far from the only ones playing the game.

In today's issue of The Washington Post, Robert O'Harrow Jr. and Scott Higham take a look at the lengths to which one company went to ensure that it would receive some of the government largesse in the wake of the September 11th attacks -- and the large amount of help that company received from a high-ranking House Republican.

The issues raised in this extended article (which I recommend you read in full) do not necessarily point to illegal behavior by any involved. Indeed, the current campaign finance laws all but encourage leaders of industry and unions to dump significant campaign contributions on individual members of Congress with whom they have a close relationship. That said, it would be wrong to mistake this veneer of separation between campaign contributions and Congressional favors for a real wall between the two.

Pay-to-play politics is not something Republicans invented; using money to influence legislation may go back as far as governments have existed. What's more, the culture in Washington in the early 1990s -- a time when Democrats had controlled the House of Representatives for 40 years -- made it difficult for those not connected to the Democratic Party to have a significant say on Capitol Hill. Nevertheless, the current Republican hegemony in Washington, coupled with the aggressive "K Street Project" tactics of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, have created a situation in which it seems necessary to donate substantial campaign contributions to committee and subcommittee chairmen in order to advance legislation. The O'Harrow and Higham article only underscores this idea, as does this post by reader Words Have Power.

What does this mean for Democrats? The Democratic Party can certainly pay lip service to those concerned by corruption and ethics violations and garner a few extra votes from independent voters. With such a strategy, Democrats would probably even be able to continue this system with the veneer of separation.

But it is not good enough just to take short-term political gain from Republican ethics scandals. Current polling is fairly clear in indicating that the public thinks that both parties are responsible for ethics problems inside the Beltway. In order to make real gains -- not just next year, but in elections to come -- the Democrats must articulate policies that will clean up the seeming pay-for-play culture of Washington. While these proposals need not be immediate (certainly, they can be incremental), they must show the electorate how serious the Democratic Party is about banning the type of culture that allows the Randy "Duke" Cunninghams of the world to enrich themselves through service in Congress.

One a final note for this post, I would like to wish everyone in the MyDD community celebrating a Merry Christmas and/or a Happy Hanukkah, as well as a healthy and happy New Year.