Not long ago the hottest topic in Washington, campaign finance reform has been on ice for the better part of a year. The issue of to what extent soft money — the tens of millions in unregulated contributions from business, labor and other influence-seekers to the two major parties — sways legislation seems on hold until after the election or the next outrage, whichever comes first.

Outrage, always the heavy favorite, wins. According to the latest batch of Federal Election Commission campaign-finance reports, the Democratic and Republican national committees both received and accepted contributions in excess of $20,000 not from some mega-corporation, amalgamated brotherhood or vaguely named special interests group, but from the National Association of Counties.

Put another way, in excess of $20,000 to each party from the taxpayers of the counties that are members of the National Association of Counties. Washington-based NACo was established in 1935 to give county governments throughout the nation a voice in the White House and Congress. The remarkable thing about this latest development is that it took the two parties 65 years to get around to telling NACo that the White House and Congress charges to listen.

The money, in the great scheme of the influence-peddling scheme, isn’t much and NACo does have sources of income other than the dues paid by its county members — rents, royalties and the sales of products such as financial services to counties and their employees. Still, the dues, even at a mere $550 a year, add up — more than 1,800 of the nation’s 3,066 counties are NACo members, including Franklin, Lincoln and Somerset in Maine.

This is the first time NACo has contributed to the parties. In the long tradition of the sources and amounts of soft-money contributions reflecting what specific legislation is pending, NACo timed its financial support to coincide with Congress’s consideration an issue in which it has an acute interest — sales taxes and Internet commerce. NACo spokesman Tom Goodman says the contribution “gives us additional access we may not have.”

Access to government is good. One level of government paying for access to another is absurd. Linking, of even suggesting linking, the outcome of legislation to campaign contributions is extortion. NACo, like others who get caught up in this racket, may have felt compelled to write a couple of big checks. The parties should feel ashamed to have accepted them.