The November presidential election in the United States is supposed to be the first one to be contested within the limits redefined for raising campaign finance which spell a ban on soft money by what is generally known as McCain/ Feing old law , named after its two principal sponsors in the Senate, passed in March 2002.

But as the 2004 campaign enters its crucial phase, there are all indications that the limits have been violated and the soft money is back with a vengeance. The new law was deemed necessary by Congress to prevent corrupting influence of the corporate sector on the process of law-making in the two houses and holding of elections.

In all capitalist democracies, it goes without saying, money and politics have a symbiotic relationship. Money creates channels of access for the special interests to the corridors of the decision-making bodies in government and parliament.

In feudal democracies like Pakistan, this relationship assumes worst forms and on occasions produces ugly practices such as horse-trading. In the US, big business buys influence over official policies by contributing huge sums of money to both Republican and Democratic parties.

But hardly two years have passed since Congress passed the new law that corporations' money has found its way into the campaign coffers of Republicans and Democrats. So far, the two parties have raised over $364 million - more than what Bush and Gore were able to do by this point in the 2000 campaign when soft and hard money were allowed. Which means the law has failed to work.

The 2004 election may, thus, turn out to be the most expensive one in American history. The soft money of past elections is very much there. It has simply acquired a new face. Now, it works outside the party apparatus but still plays a key role at pre-election party conventions.

A contribution made beyond what is legally allowed is called soft money. Simply put, soft money is the money which is not supposed to be part of the campaign finance system.

Corporate hold on politics grew when a loophole was left unplugged by a federal election commission's ruling in 1978. For years, this loophole remained largely dormant. It was activated in the 1988 presidential campaign when Dukakis and Bush Sr began aggressive soft money fund-raising. The myth is that this money is contributed to what is euphemistically called 'party building' but it remains a legal fiction.

The passage of the McCain-Feingold law in 2002 outlawed huge "soft-money" contributions to candidates from corporations, unions and the wealthy, but it did not bar similar contributions to the local host committees which sponsor the conventions and are nominally separate from the party organization.

Then, last year the Federal Election Commission eliminated a regulation, adopted in 1994, that required companies contributing to a host committee to be locally based. The result was that while nine companies gave substantial amounts to both Democratic and Republican conventions in 2000 elections, 20 companies have done so this year.

So far, according to preliminary data supplied by the host committee, 150 big corporations and other wealthy donors have pumped $39.5 million into receptions, parties and other events surrounding the Democratic convention.

Four companies - Raytheon, the big defence contractor; New Balance, a Boston-based shoe manufacturer; IBM; and Fidelity Investments - have given at least $1 million apiece for the Boston affair. AT&T, Nextel Communications and Amgen each gave at least $500,000.

Dozens of large companies are hosting "tributes" for favoured Democratic congressmen and senators, in many cases rewarding them for specific legislative favours. A New York Times account describes an atmosphere of boat cruises, golf outings, concerts and late night events in locations like the trendy club Saint, which features an all-red 'bordello room' and beds for patrons to lounge.

What has happened in the present election campaign, according to Corp Watch website, is that the largest sums of corporate cash are flowing to candidates through a process called "bundling".

Under this process, the spending limits on donations are circumvented by collecting money from family, colleagues, and employees. These donations are then "bundled" under a single name, ensuring recognition, and influence equal to the money they raised. What the new law was designed to prohibit is exactly what is happening in this election.

The idea of bundling was Bush team's work. When he decided to run for president in 2000, he was suddenly faced with $1,000 cap on hard money donations. The solution was bundling or the new soft money.

The process of bundling was enhanced by a provision in Federal Election Campaign Act or the McCain law that actually raised the previous $1,000 limit on hard money - direct individual donations - to $2,000.

Of the $296 million George W. Bush has raised since 1998, at least one-third of that total came from a mere 642 of the "super-donors", according to data collected by Texans for Public Justice (TPJ), an Austin-based watchdog group that has tracked Bush's political contributors since the beginning of his career.

Among them are 370 corporate executives, 148 of whom have been involved in corporate scandals or run companies involved in scandals, including Enron's Ken Lay and Florida sugar-magnate Jo Jose "Pepe" Fanjul.

These big bundlers are affiliated with 102 companies that received a total of $82 billion in contracts from the federal government during last fiscal year - profits on buying influence.

While the Bush campaign gives titles of "Pioneers" and "Rangers" to bundlers, the Kerry campaign calls them "Co-Chairs" (raising at least $50,000) and "Vice-chairs" ($100,000).

According to Public Citizen, a website run by Ralph Nader, these "Chairs" account for at least one-third of Kerry's total cash. Kerry is getting almost as much as Bush has collected through his bundling programme. Although Kerry supported McCain/Feingold law, he is no Mr Clean. He has been involved in some well-publicized campaign finance scandals.

The industry that has long backed Kerry's political career is telecommunications. Bundlers from the industry have raised at least $3 million for Kerry. But it is the finance industry that has suddenly become Kerry's main corporate benefactor, contributing at least $8 million through bundlers.

According to Corp Watch, Wall Street is the key patron of the Bush campaign. From October 2003 to January 2004, nine of top 10 bundlers for the Bush campaign were from the Wall Street.

Delaware-based MNBA, the world's largest issuer of credit cards, recently surpassed Enron to become Bush's top all-time contributor, having sent to the president $605,000 by March last.

While influencing legislation in Congress is probably their primary goal, bundlers also move into political positions inside the administration. So, no less than 24 Pioneers or Rangers from the 2000 campaign were appointed ambassadors to such key countries as Austria, Belgium, Saudi Arabia (which went to an oil executive from Harken) and France, as well as much-coveted picturesque locations like Mauritius and Seychelles. And 47 were appointed to the transition team. Two, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge and Labour Secretary Elaine Chao, were appointed to cabinet positions.

In 2003, the pharmaceutical industry, under the leadership of its powerful trade lobby, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), launched the most expensive lobbying campaign in American history. PhrMA spent nearly $109 million and hired more than 800 lobbyists to ensure the passage of the Bush Administration's $535 billion Medicare/Prescription Drug Bill.

PhRMA's victory showed that the pervasive power of lobbyists is still works in Washington. Big trade associations hold weekly meetings there with leaders from the two main political parties.

At the Democratic convention, Drug-maker Bristol-Myers Squibb is co-sponsoring a bash at Symphony Hall in honour of Senator Edward Kennedy, whose initial support for Bush's Medicare drug plan was critical to the passage of a measure which amounts to a huge federal subsidy to the pharmaceutical industry.

In past election cycles, the corrupting influence of Washington's big trade groups was split evenly between the two parties. Now, according to the Centre for Responsive Politics, a prestigious US-based think-tank, about two-thirds of lobbyist money flows to Republicans.

Republicans use a database to systematically track and tally what lobbyists are doing for which candidates. Lobbyists could then be confronted for supporting Democrats or playing both sides, thus keeping the money flowing to the party in power.

There are 24,000 registered lobbyists in Washington and the influence of the corporate interests they represent is on display at the two parties' national conventions. The Republicans have set a goal of $64 million to spend on their convention.

And the Democrats may have spent $95 million on their convention in Boston which began last week. The party had spent $36 million in Los Angeles in 2000 which was then considered the most expensive convention in history.