While Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's language certainly spiced up the issue, the real question is whether "pay to play" is a common practice in all parts of our government today.  I am, of course, referring to the federal indictment of Blagojevich for allegedly attempting to sell President-elect Obama's vacant seat in the U.S. Senate to somebody, anybody, who could give the Illinois governor the best deal.  But a lot of folks who talk to me about politics seem to think this is a common occurrence -- that is somebody who wants something from government has to give something to the elected officials in return.

      "Pay to play" is the shorthand for this practice.  And it comes in all forms.  You want a government contract from the city, make a big contribution to the mayor's campaign.  You want a state agency to sign off on a permit for your company, give the governor something extra special.  You want legislative support for your bill, get key legislators some tickets to the Steelers' playoff games.

      The problem with "pay to play" is that the line between legitimate political contribution and bribery is not always as crystal clear as some of us would like.  Most governments -- local, state, federal -- have "ethics" rules and "campaign finance" rules that attempt to mitigate the worst abuses.  And, of course, anything that involves a significant personal pecuniary benefit to the elected official (as opposed to a campaign contribution) in exchange for public action is illegal. 

      But a campaign contribution can be just as much a benefit to a mayor, a governor, or a legislator as anything else, particularly if the size is large.  That's where Pennsylvania, Allegheny County, the City of Pittsburgh put themselves at great risk of "pay to play."   While the city of Philadelphia has limited the amount of money, a contractor doing business with the city can contribute to the campaign of the mayor or city council members, in Pittsburgh we have no such rules.  [Mayor Ravenstahl vetoed one such reform bill].  And in Pennsylvania, the sky's the limit when it comes to campaign contributions.

      If someone gives $100,000 to a gubernatorial candidate's campaign, does anyone think the recipient doesn't feel just a little bit obligated?

      As disgusting as it is, the Blagojevich scandal will serve an important public policy purpose if it gets the public to encourage stronger laws to guard against "pay to play."  Will that happen?  I'm not holding my breath.