Even though their leader has recently endorsed the concept on national television, House Democrats are not likely to pursue publicly funded Congressional elections if they gain control of the chamber next January.

During an appearance on NBC’s "Meet the Press" last Sunday, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) responded to a question about political contributions from lobbyists by volunteering her support for public funding of campaigns.

"I think we have to break the link completely," she declared.

But don't expect Democrats -- who need a net gain of 15 seats to reclaim the House majority they lost a dozen years ago -- to push for an idea that opponents have long derided as "welfare for politicians," either in the campaign or if they take control of Congress.

"It's her personal opinion," Jennifer Crider, Pelosi's spokeswoman, said Wednesday, downplaying the significance of the leader's pronouncement. "It's been her personal opinion for 20 years."

Even Democrats who back public financing say the issue isn't likely to come up any time soon.

"I don't think that's going to be the Democratic position on this" during the campaign, said Rep. Henry Waxman (Calif.). "Not all Democrats agree on that position ... and there’s so much else to talk about."

Rep. Louise Slaughter (N.Y.), ranking member of the Rules Committee, added that she "hasn't heard much" talk about public funding among her colleagues. She predicted that Democrats in the majority would find other subjects to address legislatively.

"We'd want to do substantive things, not work on ourselves," Slaughter said.

However, Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said that if they gain the majority, Democrats would pursue "nonpartisan, or at the very least bipartisan" hearings in Washington and around the country, inviting citizens to express their views on a range of issues, including publicly financed campaigns.

"I think there has always been sort of a knee-jerk reaction that has made people skittish about this issue," he said. "But the more people see who is funding these elections and what is happening to the taxpayers' money, more Americans will believe there is a need for public funding or for something similar."

Past efforts to enact public financing have largely been symbolic.

In January, Democratic Reps. David Obey (Wis.) and Barney Frank (Mass.) proposed a complex public funding scheme for all general elections for House seats. Their plan, which has languished since its introduction, would allocate between $750,000 and $1,500,000 to each district, based on its median family income. The scheme would be financed by a voluntary "check-up" on federal tax returns.

On "Meet the Press," Pelosi also called for a voluntary system, perhaps similar to the mechanism by which presidential elections are publicly funded. (That presidential system, though, is now considered in crisis, with both major party candidates opting not to participate in 2004.)

One concern Democrats seem to have about pushing the idea is that voters, particularly if prodded by Republicans, may feel they are being compelled to bankroll political campaigns.

The press secretary for the second ranking House Democrat, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.), said that "it would have to be voluntary, just like the presidential system. He feels we could look at it, but it's not something he's looked at or focused on extensively."

Still, the issue figures to make some news in the coming days, with the nonpartisan Americans for Campaign Reform scheduled this morning to formally kick off its campaign to establish public funding for all federal elections.

The group, founded by one-time Senate candidate John Rauh, who lost a 1992 bid against now-Sen. Judd Gregg (R-N.H.), is promoting a plan to provide public financing to candidates in both primary and general elections for the House, Senate and Executive Office.

According to estimates on the group's Web site, the program would cost approximately $1.8 billion annually, funded through an annual Congressional appropriation.

While the group has already gained the backing of former Sens. Bill Bradley (D-N.J.), Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.), Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.) and Warren Rudman (R-N.H.) -- all of whom serve as the organization’s honorary chairmen -- officials acknowledge they are at the beginning a multi-year campaign.

"This is going to be a long-term, difficult process," said ACR spokesman Nick Mitchell, who said the group estimates it has garnered 10,000 online supporters so far. "This is going to take public pressure," Mitchell added. "And that's where we see our role."

Under the proposal, an independent commission would be established to determine the costs of campaigning in each state or Congressional district, and then presented in a single package to Congress for an up-or-down vote.

Candidates would receive funds through either a "voluntary grant system," which would require would-be lawmakers to first raise a specific number of "small" contributions and gather signatures to qualify for a full grant for campaign costs, or through a "voluntary match system." The second system would match each "small" contributions raised by candidates with federal dollars for an equal or greater amount.

Both proposals would allow candidates to opt out of the public funding system and raise private funds in accordance with existing laws. In its estimates, ACR predicts that at least one candidate will opt out of financing in each race to rely on personal finances or private fundraising.

Statistics provided by ACR estimate that a public financing system would lower campaign expenses by up to 25 percent, owing to the elimination of fundraising costs once candidates have reached initial financing requirements.

"Once that is taken away, candidates will need a little less money than they currently do to run a race," Mitchell said.

But while a decreased demand for campaign dollars could appeal to incumbent lawmakers, Mitchell said the proposal is nonetheless expected to draw opposition from Members.

Incumbents "will obviously see this as a threat," Mitchell said. "I think any one of us would be unlikely to enact a system that gives our opponents more of an advantage."

In addition, ACR predicts that the public funding measure would likely increase the number of candidates competing in primary election.

Copyright 2006 © Roll Call Inc. All rights reserved.