It is no news that political campaigns are run on money, and lots of it. The legality of the various wheelings and dealings is watched pretty closely, especially by opposing sides, in case there is an edge to be gained by pointing out another candidate's unethical behavior.

This year's exhausting American presidential campaign has seen some new tactics in a very old game. Much is being made in the press of the different approaches to popularity building recently taken by the two leading contenders of the Democratic Party. The historic way of reaching Southern voters especially, has been through endorsements from powerful politicians and preachers. The alternative approach being used by Obama's campaign managers includes building political momentum from the ground up through such means as creating a ubiquitous presence on social networking Web sites among other methods. The result is more of a labor movement style of reaching voters. It is becoming clear that after the dust settles, win or lose, the Obama campaign's new "grassroots" strategies will be closely analyzed and discussed in political planning meetings for many years to come.

What isn't being discussed is the ethics and morality of the influential mix of politics, money and religion. The involvement of popular and religious figures in swaying the outcome of elections is clearly growing. While most of us are understandably shocked at the inflated importance given to the opinions of celebrities, perhaps we are overlooking the inappropriateness of religious authorities selling their support as many so blatantly do? Should they not be "citizens" of a higher kingdom first and reassuringly Americans second? Surely they should be supporting their entire congregations without pressuring them to get in line with the party that church leaders, for whatever reason, have decided to support? Is it unreasonable to consider that a minister's responsibility is to be attending to the spiritual and sometimes immediate physical needs of parishioners and not to be embroiled in local or national politics?

Perhaps this is especially troubling when there is seemingly only the proverbial "cigarette paper" separating the candidate's agendas. What does make the difference then if it is not policy and qualifications? Disturbingly, in many cases it is who offered the most money for endorsement. This support buying is thinly veiled in language like "consulting fees," but is it not clearly and blatantly purchasing votes? The more votes an individual is likely to influence, the higher the stakes.

It's all about the proclivity for the politically uninvolved to go with the recommendation of someone they trust. This makes it imperative for campaigners to ensure that influential public figures like ministers and civic leaders support the candidate they are working for. Because of this dynamic there is a long and sometimes sordid history of offering fat sums to individuals in order to obtain their vigorous endorsement.

The January 23, 2008 Wall Street Journal carried an interesting article about this practice. The author discussed one candidate's offer of a $5,000-per-month consulting contract to a state senator who is legendary for his record of vote getting or suppressing. He also happens to be a pastor of an 11,000-member church and runs an ad agency, formidable qualifications in today's political arena. The article claims that the offered contract was far short of payments he has collected in the past for similar services. Federal records show that as recently as 2004 he was paid roughly $15,000 per month in consulting fees to assist a presidential candidate. The gentleman involved, however, is reported to have transferred his support to the opposing candidate saying "A lot of our hearts were torn, it wasn't an easy choice."

It is hard to believe the much fatter money bag offered by the rival did not help soothe the pain somewhat. According to the Wall Street Journal the minister subsequently received more than $135,000 from February 2007 through September 2007 as "consulting fees" and remains on the payroll.

Sadly, money is often at the root of ethical compromise. The Bible has long offered the wisdom that the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil (1Timothy 6:10). Although like so many other physical things, money is not an evil of itself, the effect it can have on the mind often elevates its importance above genuine outgoing care and concern for the welfare of others (1 Timothy 6:17-19). The desire for the power or prestige that money can provide often skews a person's judgment of right and wrong.

Religious leaders have a duty to place themselves above the influence of those desiring to buy their influence for personal gain. The ancient writer James, writing in the same Bible these leaders purport to teach, devoted a lengthy section of his letter to warning about partiality towards those with money as opposed to those without.

Big money politics and the guardians of biblical instruction have little in common. Jesus warned of trying to mix the two when He pointed out that, "No one can serve two masters. . . . You cannot serve God and mammon" (Matthew 6:24). Maybe it is time to remind some of our religious leaders of this potentially inconvenient truth.