The Jack Abramoff scandal has focused badly needed attention on the quid pro quo between politicians and donors -- the granting of legislative favors in return for big donations. But evidence suggests that when it comes to money in politics, Abramoff is a distraction from the real issue: the "pyramid of money."

Party leaders such as House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R., Ill.) and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), as well as most incumbents from both parties, don't need to spend a dime on their reelections, since they represent districts that are one-party strongholds.

This is due not so much to redistricting abuses as to the noncompetitive nature of winner-take-all elections resulting from partisan residential patterns. You cannot draw a competitive district out of Pelosi's overwhelmingly liberal San Francisco bastion no matter how you carve it. Most legislative districts are like that.

Nevertheless, party leaders and incumbents raise huge amounts of money for their own reelections. Why? For party-building activities, especially to finance colleagues in the handful of hotly contested races. This in turn buys them influence among their peers and powerful leadership positions. Think of a pyramid structure, with each party's Big Money Kings and Queens on top, directing cash to the predictably tight races and hoping to win a majority of seats for their team.

The rest of the safe-seat incumbents, along with the lobbyists, lawyers, allied PACs and donors, fill out the lower levels of the pyramid. They funnel money into the pyramid's labyrinth, where it is directed by party leaders. It's a well-oiled operation, with lots of give and take among the different levels of the team.

Indeed, comments by former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay reveal the extent to which lobbyists and special interests follow the lead of political leaders. Said DeLay: "No one came to me and said, 'Please repeal the Clean Air Act.' We say to the lobbyists, 'Help us.' We know what we want to do, and we find the people to help us do that."

Abramoff, sentenced to six years after pleading guilty to influence-peddling and bribery, precisely illustrates the point. He was not involved in activities that affected major policy areas. Instead, his activities involved receiving favors from legislators for himself and his business clients in exchange for large donations and perks for legislators. They scratched each other's backs, each playing their roles in the pyramid of money.

The quid pro quo is repugnant, but is only a symptom of the bigger picture. Abramoff and his ilk are hardly the reason DeLay and the GOP pursue certain policies. Major policy directions are driven by the dynamics of the pyramid, with its one-party fiefdoms and Kings and Queens sitting atop the pile -- not by the Abramoffs.

Certainly, there are notorious examples of riders attached to bills because some quid pro quo occurred between a donor and a powerful political leader. But such riders usually are a small percentage of legislation. Most of the time, such a blatant quid pro quo affects the donor's personal business situation, not major policy areas -- an important distinction.

What this means is that even with strong campaign-finance reform, breaking up the pyramid will be very difficult to do as long as we are using a winner-take-all system, where most legislative seats are lopsided one-party districts, and invincible incumbents with no worries about reelection funnel their campaign funds to party leaders atop the pyramid.

If we don't understand the dynamics of how our political system works, we will miss the mark when we try to reform it.

Versions of this article also appeared in The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Salt Lake Tribune.