BOB ABERNETHY: Now, Perspectives. We turn from the ascetic discipline of Eastern Orthodoxy to what seemed like the anything goes campaign fund-raising practices of Washington. Is an action wrong only if it's illegal? Does our present system require a candidate to behave unethically in order to get elected? If so, how should the system be changed, and who should change it? David Broder is a political reporter and columnist for THE WASHINGTON POST. Nancy Sherman is a professor of ethics at Georgetown University and the U.S. Naval Academy. David, what's wrong with the system, with the politicians, both? What's wrong?

DAVID BRODER (Columnist, THE WASHINGTON POST): I don't think its a problem of moral laxity on the part of individuals. I'm impressed by the character of most of the people and motivations of the people coming in the political system, but that system puts almost unendurable pressures on them, both because of the competitiveness of our politics and the extraordinary cost of our politics.

Professor NANCY SHERMAN (Ethicist, Georgetown University): I take exception here. I do think there are pressures, but I also think there is a moral laxity. I think we've moved into a society where you have to criminalize immoral action, and what happens is people look for loopholes and ways to evade morality. And so what becomes immoral seems to be equal of illegal or under indictment, and that's a problem.

ABERNETHY: Do you want a candidate to, what, risk losing rather than raise all the money he can?

Prof. SHERMAN: Yeah, absolutely. I'd like a candidate to risk losing. I think we're looking -- the public's looking for leaders that have moral courage and a little bit of moral fortitude. What comes to my mind is the night Elliot Richardson said he wasn't going to fire Archibald Cox. That was a moral leader in political office. I don't think we've seen many of those lately.

ABERNETHY: But that's an impossible choice for a politician, isn't it, Dave?

Mr. BRODER: It's not an impossible choice, but I think before we stand in judgment on the politicians, we ought to look at our own behavior as citizens. I mean, every citizen knows that the cost of communicating realistically in this country, because it has to be on television, is very high. Voters -- 95 percent of the voters never give a nickel to any campaign, they leave it to others. And where's the moral equation there?

Prof. SHERMAN: Well, I agree, you're absolutely right. Influence comes with money, and we're not often as participatory or partake in the process as we ought to be. On the other hand, what's happened is that policy is being shaped by the wealthy who have access, and it has to be, I think, the leaders who take a stand on this, even if it costs them their career.

ABERNETHY: What would be an example of the choice a politician has to make?

Mr. BRODER: Well, I was at a press breakfast the other day with the Governor of Vermont, Howard Dean, an estimable man, a physician in private life. And he was being challenged about how the Democrats had raised money in the last campaign. "Isn't it demeaning for the President and Vice President of the United States?" And his response was, "I would rather be a demeaned president than a undemeaned ex-president."

ABERNETHY: He was serious?

Mr. BRODER: He was very serious about that.

Prof. SHERMAN: And that's exactly the problem, I'd say. I'd rather have a president that stands up for certain moral principles, even if he is an ex-president, than have one that doesn't. Now, I know what will come up. That is, there are certain policies a president wants to put through, "the end justifies the means," but I don't think the end always justifies the means. And we're looking for character.