Reform Worth Rescuing

The changes they propose are both practical and innovative. To create strong incentives for small-money donors, the bill would establish a 4-1 match for all individual contributions of $200 or less in the primary period. To take into account how the presidential primaries actually work (candidates need to spend far more in the decisive early primaries than in later primaries), state-by-state limits on spending would be scrapped. The primary spending limit would be raised to $150 million, while candidates would receive a flat $100 million for the fall election.

The proposal takes into account contingencies that the old system didn't cover. For example, spending limits would be raised for a candidate being massively outspent by an opponent who rejected the system's restrictions.

Market economists have instructed us on the importance of incentives. For roughly 30 years, the presidential election system created strong inducements so candidates could avoid some of the worst aspects of the money chase and still run competitively.

And the relatively modest costs of public financing are a form of taxpayer insurance: With presidential candidates protected from some of the exigencies of fundraising, citizens can have a greater sense of security that their chief executive, who presides over a $2.7 trillion federal budget, will not have his choices influenced by major givers.

Many of the worst mistakes in politics are sins of omission. If Congress does nothing, we risk returning to the rules of the pre-Watergate years and a much higher risk of scandal. Feingold, Shays and Meehan have issued a timely warning. Their colleagues should pay attention before a successful reform falls to pieces.

postchat@aol.com