There are lobbyists who give money and then there are lobbyists who give money and this week's National Journal is concerned with the latter group.  The cover story profiles a handful of the biggest lobbyist donors inside the Beltway, a surprising number of whom are opposed neither to a ban on lobbyist donations nor to public financing of elections.John and Heather Podesta, Larry and Helen O'Brien, Richard and Deborah Holdt,  Ken and Kathleen Keis, and H. Stewart Van Scoyoc each pour in hundreds of thousands of dollars per cycle into the campaign coffers of candidates and enjoy copious insider access.  The article poses the question of whether they're true believers giving for ideological reasons, or just power-players ante-ing up to stay at the table. In fact, there's a candid acknowledgement of the blurred line between lobbyists doing their job and giving their money:"I don't know how you separate the fundraising from the legislating," says Democratic lobbyist Julie Domenick, who is one of the few women who rank in the top 20 of lobbyist campaign donors this year. "Because on any given day, there's legislation and there are fundraisers. I don't see the alternative."Yet increased public scrutiny of relationships between lobbyists, their donations, and lawmakers has contributed at least in part to support among the lobbyists mentioned in this article for campaign finance proposals that would curtail or counter their giving.  Gerald S.J. Cassidy, a K Street veteran, endorses public financing of elections, the Podestas would be fine with a ban on lobbyist contributions, as would Larry O'Brien, and Van Scoyoc offers perhaps the most candid assessment of the problems with the game he plays so well:Many people in his firm support public financing, Van Scoyoc says, and "a dramatic majority" would support banning contributions from lobbyists. But absent those changes, he adds, "we have to find a way to participate in the system as it exists."Van Scoyoc expresses little interest in the social events and junkets available to him as a big donor. As for his wife, he says, she's "totally apolitical." Her campaign giving, he explains candidly, simply doubles his contributions: It "increases my ability to support the people in this firm. And she's happy to do that." He has five children, none of whom he would ever ask to donate. "That is one of the very firm lines in concrete that I will draw."Far from relishing the political fundraising scene, Van Scoyoc describes it as a necessary evil. There are "many negatives, in the sense that the more you give, the greater are the expectations you create and the public scrutiny you invite." He adds: "The press usually gets it wrong. This is a necessary part of life in this town for most of the members of Congress. Most of them don't particularly enjoy doing it. And it's very unfortunate that it has become such a part of life." Does money buy access, or does access cultivate a desire to give money -- either way there's no question that those with access will experience government, and the ramifications of public policy decisions, very differently than will the majority of Americans.  If voters marginalized by traditional campaign fundraising, and big donors on the inside recognize equally a need for a change then the time has come to make progress towards full public financing of campaigns.