Thanks to the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and a mysterious man named Norman Hsu, the public is learning about campaign finance, version 2007.

Today's presidential candidates are in a race for votes and poll numbers. But first and foremost, they are in a race for dollars.

Changes to campaign finance laws barring large donations from individuals have made raising money tougher. Enter the so-called bundlers, like Hsu, who collect lots of smaller donations from many people then deliver a large contribution to a campaign.

And because raising vast sums of money is so critical to winning, most politicians don't seem to care — or want to know — where the money comes from.

Hsu surfaced recently after questions were raised about his bundling — and status as a legal fugitive.

Hsu skipped bail more than a decade ago in California after being convicted of defrauding investors out of $1 million. He turned himself in to authorities in late August, posted a $2 million bond, then disappeared again. He has since been arrested again. Beyond his legal issues, Hsu is not a typical bundler. A few years ago, he rose out of obscurity to quickly become a top Democratic fundraiser.

When questions about Hsu first surfaced, the Clinton campaign said it would return only the $23,000 that Hsu himself contributed. Later, as the scandal grew, the Clinton campaign agreed to return the entire $850,000 that Hsu had bundled for Clinton.

The scandal has been a headache for the Clinton campaign, partly because it reminds voters of similar fundraising scandals involving her husband's presidential campaign and mysterious Asian contributors.

Bundling is common in both Democratic and Republican campaigns. But the apparent abuse by Hsu and the ease with which straw donors can be used to funnel large amounts of money to political campaigns makes the latest congressional attempts at campaign finance reform look weak, or intentionally designed with loopholes.

Even Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, who has prided himself on raising about the same amount of money as Clinton, but from many more people contributing smaller amounts, was stung by Hsu. In 2005, Hsu co-hosted a fundraiser for Obama and his campaign has recently donated to charity the $7,000 contributed by Hsu.

The complicated transactions surrounding Hsu's donations are still being examined. He made contributions to a wide range of Democratic candidates at the national and state levels, including Gov. Ed Rendell. He also donated to some nonpolitical organizations.

It is still unclear what motivated Hsu. Campaign officials maintain that he did not ask his political beneficiaries for favors or push a particular agenda. It does appear, however, that there is some financial or business connection between Hsu and most of those he targeted for contributions to be bundled.

Still, when a person unknown in political circles suddenly pops up and starts making very large donations, it seems obvious that people would ask questions.But because money is the lifeblood of $100-million political campaigns, nobody bothered to ask any questions.

Now, there are plenty of questions, and a lot of red-faced politicians returning money that they gladly took months ago. In reaction to the Hsu scandal, the Clinton campaign has said it will conduct criminal background checks on its larger bundlers and other big donors.

There are reportedly 2,000 people working as bundlers in the 2008 presidential campaign. Though it's doubtful that many are as prolific as Hsu, they are critical elements in today's money-driven campaigns.

Federal law, enacted in 2002, limits donations to $2,300 per person and bars fundraisers from reimbursing contributors. But the law is clearly flawed. One improvement would be a requirement that all bundlers be identified by all campaigns. At this time, some candidates such as Clinton and Obama, identify bundlers, but only at levels of $50,000 or $100,000. Candidate John Edwards reportedly identifies all contributors.

Separating money from politics might be impossible, but demanding greater transparency and imposing more rigorous reporting rules can help filter out some of the most questionable characters.