It doesn't matter that the legislation, besides outlawing (most) corporate and union contributions to political parties, would replace the private dough with millions of dollars in public funds. Party bigwigs prefer to hit up corporations, for reasons that transcend mere money. It is also about influence, and prestige. The successful corporate fundraiser becomes a power within the party, commensurate with his contributions to party coffers.

The corporations themselves could take or leave this arrangement.

While some delight in the clout their money buys, most would just as soon not have to shell out for the cause, if they could be assured their competitors were not doing so in their place. The bagman making the rounds of the corporate suites is usually engaged more in a shakedown operation than overt influence peddling. It is the party that loves the status quo, not the corporations. And so it is the Liberal party, represented by its president, that is preparing a coup de main against a Liberal Prime Minister, on a piece of legislation he has described as the most important bill before the House of Commons.

The party executive has long been making ominously anti-democratic noises, to the effect that the legislation is unacceptable and must be changed -- as if to confirm the suspicion that the real seat of government in this country is not Parliament, but the party, as in any Third World country. Against this background, it is probably progress that the party president, Stephen LeDrew, is now conniving with democratically elected legislators, notably the Conservatives (Mr.

LeDrew apparently got nowhere with the NDP, which favours the legislation, notwithstanding the ban on union contributions -- an act of enlightened self-interest for which they should be saluted). But it still amounts to a conspiracy against the public interest, a last-ditch attempt to preserve control of the political process in the hands of the few.

Mr. LeDrew wants the proposed $1,000 annual limit on corporate contributions -- already a retreat from the original outright ban -- raised to $10,000, the same limit that applies to individuals. Admittedly, this is better than the current system of unlimited contributions, as currently on display in the Liberal leadership race, in which $100,000 donations are not unknown. But not much better: a corporate CEO could donate $10,000 on his own behalf, $10,000 on behalf of the corporation he heads, and $10,000 for each of its subsidiaries. The bill would effectively be gutted.

And Mr. LeDrew is hardly acting alone. A good many Liberal MPs are also opposed to the bill, many of them staunch supporters of Paul Martin, whose appeal to, and reliance on, corporate contributors is well known. Weakened as he is, it is an open question whether Mr. Chretien has enough votes to carry the bill. Unless ...

Unless he does his own deal with the opposition -- in this case, the Canadian Alliance. The Alliance is not opposed to that part of the bill that would ban corporate contributions. Indeed, its leader, Stephen Harper, is on record in favour of the idea. But the party does oppose the use of public funds to subsidize political parties (which presumably means it would also do away with the existing system of tax credits for donors and reimbursement of election expenses). Again, this shows an admirable commitment to principle, since the party would be one of the biggest beneficiaries of the proposed "allowance." As objectionable as it is to draft the taxpayer into financing the political parties, that's not the real problem with the bill. The real issue is how the money is to be allocated. As currently envisaged, the parties would receive $1.50 in public funds for each vote they received in the last election, money to which they would be automatically entitled, year after year, without the grubby necessity of asking. Not only would this system tend to entrench incumbents, but it would remove an important link between the parties and the electorate.

But what if, as the former NDP leader Ed Broadbent has proposed, the money were instead directed to one party or another by the choices of individual citizens, via a checkoff on their income tax return? Such a system would encourage the parties to come up with policies that had broad appeal, not only at election time, but each year. They could no longer just wait for the cheques to roll in, whether from corporate or public coffers. They would have to get out and hustle.

Would the Broadbent Amendment be acceptable to the Alliance, if it meant getting the corporate money out of politics (and, in the process, dishing their Liberal and Tory rivals)? Would the Prime Minister accept it, if that was the only way to save his bill? Could a coalition of Alliance, NDP and reform-minded Liberal MPs change Canadian politics forever?