Openess, Public Key To Campaign Reform

Now that campaigns are safely past, politicians have a lot to say - in between fund-raising dinners - about the need for campaign finance reform.

The ruckus has a partisan flavor. Republicans want to rein in tactics that help Democrats, such as “independent” advertising funded by compulsory union dues. Democrats want to rein in tactics that help Republicans, such as the unlimited “soft money” that the wealthy can give for supposedly generic “party building” ads.

Appealing as those proposals may be, an underlying goal - embarrass and cripple the other party - makes stalemate more likely than enactment.

If that is the outcome it will aggravate public cynicism about money’s role in politics. The last election cycle did show campaign financing to be as convoluted as it is excessive. This makes Americans of average means wonder if government will hear their voices and address their concerns.

Americans who feel they can’t make a difference won’t try. And that truly is a problem for democracy.

People who donate money do get heard. Their support helps their candidates win. Is that bad? No. Money plays the same role in politics that debate does. Campaign giving and spending are forms of free speech. Limits tread on the First Amendment.

Although it’s true that money talks, it’s also a fact that people with money don’t necessarily get their way. If money ruled politics, Ross Perot would be president. If ability to fill a war chest guaranteed victory, Tom Foley would still be Speaker of the House.

There is more to politics than money. Ideas have power. Voters think for themselves. If average Americans will send more checks and volunteer more time to candidates they like, they will reduce the relative power of other interests. Look at the impact religious conservatives have had, by getting involved.

Most campaign finance proposals aim to solve the problem with regulations. But in the past when reformers tried to slam doors, loopholes opened.

There are two alternatives to regulatory limits:

Public financing, covered by a tax increase. Fat chance.

More freedom, coupled with full disclosure of who gets what from whom.

Disclosure, more feasible in the era of computer database searches, could be enhanced by a deadline for donations and a last round of reports - prior to election day.

More disclosure, and more public involvement, could be healthier than more bickering over rules designed for partisan embarrassment and advantage.

, DataTimes The following fields overflowed: CREDIT = John Webster/For the editorial board