An article last week in the New York Times reporting on an investigation by the Office of Congressional Ethics revealed some sobering facts. To those who don't think much about how money and politics mix in Washington, D.C., the reporters' descriptions will be, or should be, shocking. To those who do think they know how money and politics mix, the story will confirm their worst suspicions.

The article's first sentence sets the tone: "Lawmakers take contributions every day from corporate executives and lobbyists hoping for their votes."

The investigation, which reportedly has lobbyists, lawmakers and lawyers confused because the practice is so widely accepted, is focused on eight members of Congress and fundraisers they attended and votes they cast over a several-week period late last year.

The article reports that one lawmaker under scrutiny, a Democrat from New York, "left the Capitol during the House debate (on financial reforms) to attend a fundraising event for him hosted by a lobbyist" at a nearby hotel and featuring financial firms and other campaign contributors. The article reports that after collecting thousands of dollars in checks, the lawmaker "returned to the floor of the House just in time to vote against a series of amendments that would have imposed tougher restrictions on Wall Street."

The article reveals the sad truth that "fundraising and lawmaking (are) constantly intersected" and that soliciting donations in the middle of legislative debates is not uncommon.

In fact, it might be that lawmakers see themselves as having more leverage to extract campaign donations during intensive and controversial debates on changes that might impact businesses in a positive or negative way. Given those conditions, the donors are more likely to write bigger checks to influence votes.

This investigation is looking at eight lawmakers who solicited — and received — a significant amount of campaign money ($140,000) in the 10 days before a full House vote on the financial reform bill on Dec. 10.

The lobbyist who hosted the fundraiser at the hotel near the Capitol has been asked to turn over all files, correspondence, e-mails, receipts, etc., related to the social event, and any information on contacts with the lawmaker in attendance.

Another example being looked at is a House member who had proposed that financial transactions by car dealers be under a new regulatory agency. At about that time, this lawmaker attended a fundraiser and received a substantial check from General Electric Co., which has a giant automobile financing business. Two days after the fundraising event at the Democratic National Committee's headquarters in Washington, he withdrew the amendment.

House leaders deny the money had anything to do with dropping the amendment. They say it was just a recognition that the amendment lacked enough support to be passed.

This article has revealed how Washington works — and it's ugly. Even if lawmakers try to resist being influenced by campaign donations, the money can't help but have some effect.

There's no easy solution to this problem, which has been a part of politics probably forever. But to see the easy transition from taking checks to casting votes is sickening and begs many questions about the state of democracy in America.

Something has to change.