As efficiently and cleverly as our politicians soak up campaign donations, their true talent lies in the speed with which they can return inconvenient money. A representative in possession of tainted tender usually releases a public huff of shock and indignity, then donates or returns the sum.

This was certainly the case in the Jack Abramoff scandal, with Senator Russ Feingold making a point to jettison not just money from Abramoff, but also from donors associated with him. As the more recent and lurid Mark Foley situation goes, Wisconsin's congresspersons have been going through the motions again, making sure that everyone knows exactly what they think of their erstwhile colleague and his money.

As he donated his share of Foley's contributions to charity, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan spoke of the "vile, disgusting, immoral and probably criminal" nature of the colleague's behavior. Wisconsin gubernatorial candidate Congressman Mark Green also harshly condemned Foley's conduct, vowing to donate any questionable contributions to Wisconsin charities. And so the reaction went in virtually all political offices.

The absurdity of this whole charade is undeniable. These scandals, for all the trouble they bring, yield wonderful opportunities for politicians to moralize and to tout their sound values. Meanwhile, the money continues to flow from donors who are more quietly abominable than Foley or Abramoff, and the political world returns to the status quo until the next embarrassment.

This is where the status quo's central hypocrisy comes into play.

When a Foley-esque scandal rears its head, many of our representatives go to great lengths to return the donations, disavow connections or do whatever is necessary to keep their financial records spotless.

But when it comes to creating meaningful, foundational reform of the campaign-finance system, many of these same representatives balk, waver or actively support the status quo. In essence, dirty money is only dirty if it involves allegations of pedophilia or misdeeds as egregious as Jack Abramoff's.

In 2002, Wisconsin Congressmen Green, Ryan and Sensenbrenner voted against the McCain-Feingold bill to ban soft money and issue ads — the vulgar tip of the iceberg in terms of money in politics. More recently, Mark Green fought tooth and nail against an

Elections Board decision that had ordered him to unload from his coffers money he had acquired during his campaigns for Congress. Fresh on the heels of this ethical ambiguity, Green expressed his moral outrage over the Foley predicament. Needless to say, he had no such compunction about parting with Foley's money.

To be clear, the means of Foley's contributions were completely legitimate, and our representatives were well within their boundaries in accepting his money. However, the question at hand is not one of legitimacy but one of ethics and principle. It simply is not fair to Wisconsin citizens for representatives to preach such financial piety on one hand, and with the other, cast ballots that actively undermine efforts to create reform.

Our representatives' hypocrisy is thus hypocrisy of spirit, as they actively neglect to see the trouble with the grander scheme of things. The righteousness of their rhetoric does not match their deeds. As they focus on damage control or political gain from one scandal to another, they are not tackling the more difficult problem of their addiction to massive donations.

Frank Hennick ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in history and international studies.