The New York Times recently reported that Corning Inc, one of upstate New York's largest and oldest employers, has become one of Clinton's largest sources of campaign contribution. It's a political U-turn by a company that has supported Republican candidates for so long that its chairman once remarked that it had not donated money to a Democrat since 1812.

However, the company - a producer of glassware and ceramics used in fibre optics and diesel-emission control, among other products - recently chose to favour the Democrat senator.

The Clinton-Corning alliance shocked one of the company's retirees. "No kidding?" the Times quoted John Loose, who retired as Corning's chief executive in 2002, after 38 years. He reacted in disbelief when told of the company's contributions to her campaign after he left. Loose helped raise money for Clinton's Republican opponent, Rick Lazio, in 2000.

Nonetheless, the company and its employees contributed US$137,000 (Bt5.2 million) from the time she was elected in 2000 through to the end of last year, according to the Times.

Although it was a small portion of the US$33 million the senator raised for her re-election, it was the most from any single source other than MetLife - more even than politically active Wall Street firms like Goldman Sachs.

In fact, it was not only Clinton's charm that managed to draw Corning to the Democrats, as the former first lady has apparently done big favours for the company.

For instance, in April 2003, a month after the company's political-action committee gave Clinton US$10,000 for her re-election campaign, Clinton announced legislation that is expected to provide hundreds of millions in federal government aid to reduce diesel pollution, using technology pioneered by Corning among others. So their shifting preference seems to be a sensible move.

In Thailand, big conglomerates tend to be reluctant to reveal which party they support financially, even though it's not difficult to guess which companies support which political parties.

Maybe while Thais are discussing the political reform process, it's time to consider whether political parties should disclose the names of their supporters to enhance the checks-and-balance process in the country.

Clinton won't be expected to apologise for what she has done to return favours to her supporters. Raising funds is a normal process in politics, and people should be kept informed to see the extent the politicians are influenced by such contributions. Otherwise, the public will continue to speculate about the motives behind the government's decisions to favour to certain companies.

jeerawat@nationgroup.com