I'd like to second George Clooney's Golden Globes thank-you speech that tipped his hat to former Republican über-lobbyist Jack Abramoff. While standing at the Tinsel Town podium recently, Clooney gave the soon-to-be felon a shout-out "just because."

I have reasons for my praise of the man whose name will soon be synonymous with brazen disregard for fundraising ethics. For one, he's already prompted the resignation of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Sugar Land, Texas). Second, Pennsylvania's favorite son Rick Santorum seems poised to be another political casualty caught in the Abramoff web of legal and moral impropriety.

Though fundraising rules were never carefully heeded by either side of the partisan divide, Republicans took their schemes to a new and unstomachable level when they created the so-called K Street Project. Named in honor of the plethora of lobbyists with offices located on Washington's K Street, the project created a back-scratching symbiosis that awarded campaign funding to GOP incumbents and job openings to Republican friends in exchange for policies that favored special interests. In short, high-ranking Republican loyalists would get well-paying lobby jobs at corporations that would concurrently receive the spoils of profit-friendly legislation. Morally righteous Santorum was a key player in the creation and maintenance of this K Street Project. This might be another pivotal tidbit to keep in mind this election year. It can be tucked into your collective memory along with his love of gays and women's rights.

The K Street Project is just one manifestation of the problems that plague Washington's existing interest-group bonanza. And Abramoff, who showered lavish gifts on members of Congress and their families and, in return, received desired policy outcomes, has become the poster child for all the evils of money inside the Beltway. "One person, one vote" no longer means anything when millions of dollars are flippantly tossed among corporate kingpins and key politicos. But the Abramoff shock to the system offers Congress and the public the opportunity to redraw the existing structure of interest-group politics and political candidacy.

Both Republicans and Democrats are creating policy remedies to close up the cheesecloth of loopholes that comprise existing campaign-fundraising law. But why not throw the lachrymose politician out with the tainted bathwater? With public awareness and outrage piqued, now is the time for elected officials to make real change. And this is where my big thank-you goes to Abramoff.

He's so vilified right now, he's opened a vent in a perpetually gridlocked political system. He's created a window in which real, structural change to a faulty design can be made. Now is the time to move from a system that rewards backroom deals and effectively removes the importance of voting from the political process and to usher in the remedy of publicly financed elections.

I know, I know. It sounds crazy. It's like I'm asking you to seriously consider socialized medicine (which, I actually am). But, stop. Take a look at how the existing rules make our elected officials behave. I'm not saying DeLay and Santorum are innocent victims of a pernicious set of campaign-finance rules. No, they're unethical, self-indulgent political slugs. But every congressperson has to spend the bulk of their time courting sources of funding—especially members of the House, who come up for election every two years. Publicly financing elections would not increase public spending—taxpayers already give money to those who legitimately seek office. But adopting a publicly funded electoral system would push political office away from something only guilty or greedy millionaires could secure. Instead, knowledgeable everymen and women might actually be able to win an election and serve the public.

This is a historic moment that allows politicians to actually remove the evils of money from the political system. And I'm watching as our elected representatives bicker partisanly over who's more egregiously exploited the faulty existing structure. Instead, why can't they enact a solution that actually solves the ethical problem instead of shifting and tucking its weaknesses for later abuse?

You know, why don't they save democracy, "just because."

Thanks, Jack Abramoff.

Wendy Ginsberg is a Ph.D. candidate at Penn. She can also be found blogging at www.theapollocreed.blogspot.com.