The way political campaigns are financed in America is a disgrace. The system leaves elected officials beholden to special interests. It keeps some good people from running because, whatever the merit of their ideas, they cannot raise enough money to compete against incumbents or very wealthy candidates. Others don't run because they can't bring themselves to dial for dollars day after day.

The system makes it nearly impossible to unseat a sitting member of Congress. The re-election rate is 98 percent.

It doesn't have to be that way, says John Rauh, a New Hampshire Democrat who ran for the U.S. Senate in 1992 and 1996. Rauh met with the Monitor'seditorial board yesterday. He is trying to sell the nation on the public financing of federal elections.

Efforts are routinely made to reform the campaign finance system, but laws created to do so are doomed to fail, Rauh says. History, including recent history, suggests he's right.

But just $6 per person in federal funding would provide every credible candidate enough money to wage a viable race, according to Rauh, the founder of Americans for Campaign Reform. Some heavy hitters agree, including former senators Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, Alan Simpson of Wyoming, Bill Bradley of New Jersey and Bob Kerrey of Nebraska.

The candidate who spends the most doesn't always win. All a challenger needs, Rauh says, is good ideas and enough money to get them across to voters. Will public financing give them the ability to do that?

Rauh says it will. His plan calls for giving enough money to run a competitive race to every presidential, senatorial and congressional candidate who collects enough small contributions to qualify. The amount would vary from state to state and district to district. The amount needed for each election would be determined by a bipartisan commission. Congress could take the list or leave it but not change it.

Unlike many campaign finance reform efforts, Rauh's plan respects the First Amendment by making participation voluntary. Take public money and play by the rules. Don't take it and spend as much as you want.

Crucial details remain to be worked out. One of them is big: If the plan is to work at all, it will have to address what happens in the closing days of a campaign when a candidate at or near the spending limit must respond to a development that could spell the difference between victory and defeat. Most candidates will spend the extra money and worry about the consequences later.

Resistance to public financing of campaigns will be intense. Members of Congress may hate begging for money, but they hate even more any proposal that makes it more likely that they will lose their seats.

That said, public financing has some momentum: Maine and Arizona have it for state elections.

Moneyed interests are good at circumventing campaign finance reform. Public financing may be a better direction. As Rauh's plan develops, the public should give it serious consideration. It won't happen without grassroots support.

Copyright 2006 © Concord Monitor. All rights reserved.