Last month, there was public outrage over multimillion-dollar bonuses paid to executives at AIG, the insurance giant being kept alive with billions of dollars of taxpayer bailout money.

To many Americans, it suggested that Washington insiders had closer ties to financial executives on Wall Street than average Americans on Main Street.

At that time, there was a suggestion by a few commentators, only partially in jest, that members of Congress should be forced to wear a special jacket, similar to the jumpsuits worn by NASCAR drivers. But instead of featuring Dupont, Goodyear or Valvoline logos, the new congressional suits would feature logos of Citicorp, AIG and JPMorgan-Chase their corporate "sponsors."

One person at the center of the bonus controversy and other financial matters is Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., chairman of the Senate Banking Committee.

Dodd's NASCAR-style suit would features logos along with dollar figures for campaign donations and lobbying expenses in smaller print. Based on campaign finance reports, Dodd's jacket would be adorned with patches from Citigroup, $428,294; United Technologies, $380,550; Bear Stearns, $347,350; American International Group (AIG), $281,038; and Deloitte & Touche, $270,220.

President Barack Obama has said he wants more transparency in government. In the interest of transparency, voters should see which special interests are funding re-election campaigns or lobbying and providing perks to members of Congress.

AIG logos would be found on jackets worn by Dodd ($165,000) and Sen. John Kerry ($111,000). But it wasn't just Democrats getting money from AIG. Republican Sen. Robert Bennett got $107,000, and GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus got $103,000, to round out those receiving more than $100,000 in direct donations from 1989 to 2008.

Wall Street's investment banks have a long history of contributing to congressional campaigns, and they spread their money around to both parties. The five largest companies, Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and Morgan Stanley together gave $62.8 million over the past 10 years, and spent a whopping $651 million lobbying Congress over those years.

The biggest commercial banks, including Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan-Chase, Wachovia and Wells Fargo, made $56 million in campaign donations and spent $195 million on lobbying over that same period.

So, if NASCAR-style suits were to replace pinstripe suits in Congress, they would be covered with the logos of Wall Street's biggest names.

And that's worth remembering when or if Congress revisits credit card reform. Credit card companies have been criticized for many questionable practices, particularly sudden interest rate hikes to customers. But as public pressure mounts for credit card reform, it's worth noting that major credit card companies have spent millions of dollars on campaign contributions and millions more on lobbying Congress.

In elections from 2000 to 2004, major credit card companies, including MBNA, Citigroup, Discover (Morgan Stanley), Bank One and Bank of America, made campaign donations of $27.5 million. They also spent many millions more on lobbying efforts, which many people believe tilted the most-recent bankruptcy law changes in favor of banks and credit card companies.

And when the lobbying effort begins to thwart Defense Secretary Robert Gates' plan to slash production of the F-22 fighter jet, it should be noted that Lockheed-Martin has created a production system for the F-22 that is spread across 44 states. That means under a NASCAR-style dress code in Congress, the vast majority of lawmakers would be sporting a Lockheed-Martin patch.

Campaign donations and lobbying expenditures are not secret, but logos on jackets would be an easier way for voters to see the prime "sponsors" of each member of Congress. And if lawmakers knew that most voters were constantly seeing their corporate "sponsors," maybe the playing field in Washington wouldn't be tilted so much in favor of well-funded corporate interests.