The testimony at the G-Sting trial combined with the crimes and misdemeanors that have plagued Southern Nevada local governments for decades have imbued voters with a sense of cynicism and motivated candidates to inundate us with populist rhetoric about ethics and campaign reform.

What is often forgotten when such subjects arise, usually after a scandal and during campaign season, is the other side of the equation. That is, many look at this as a system of private sector folks currying favor or seeking influence by bribery — legalized or otherwise. But without a willing-seller, willing-buyer relationship, the system could not exist.

Some of the elected officials act like nothing short of professional extortionists as they seek money from those who come before them. Some are only too willing to be corrupted — and some are much less passive than others.

It's nearly impossible — or potentially suicidal — for business people to adopt Nancy Reagan's credo when the pols come calling. Just saying no could mean the politicians reciprocating when an item comes before him or her.

Sure, some might have enough integrity not to consider a campaign contributions snub. But why, many businessmen figure, take the chance. Better to buy the insurance policy than have to pay the damages.

So if local business types were smart — and if the Chamber of Commerce were proactive in this area — there are some campaign finance/ethics reforms that are quite cost-effective for commercial enterprises.

Assuming that the best solution — or worst one, depending on your perspective — of public financing of campaigns will never occur, what might have a chance and what might prove effective?

Surely, some of what gubernatorial contender Dina Titus has proposed might save businesses some bottom-line bleeding. For instance, prohibiting contributions while an application is pending before local governments would outlaw some of the more unseemly dealings.

Some may argue that this would ban the very insurance policies that developers and others need, the ability to remind public officials where their campaign bread is buttered. But that fundamental cynicism — justified or not — needs to be removed from the system to level the playing field for those who want it leveled — and they are the honest ones.

Other reforms might work, too. More disclosure of gifts and more scrutiny will allow businesses to save money on golf outings with people they'd rather not be on the course with in the first place. And serious cooling-off periods for elected officials might open more lobbying jobs for people actually qualified to hold them and with real skills, too.

The overall issue, though, is that the system will almost certainly not be reformed from within. Only if those outside the elected realm can really ensure that real changes are made to a system that the public thinks is broken and corrupt and that national and local events give voters every reason to believe they are right in that assumption.

Unless the business community takes a strong, aggressive approach in this area, thus not leaving reform in the hands of those who only want it when they are running but not when they are serving, the status quo will be the status quo.

For some of you reading this, that's just fine. But if it's not, the ball's in your court.