Somewhere between the wistful attempts to pass campaign finance reform in Congress and the recent ruling in Maine that upheld public financing of campaigns here is a solution to the growing lack of faith in the political system. National reformers might look to Maine’s ruling for inspiration.

The lack of faith is most easily seen in the declining percentage of voters, a year by year drop that allows candidates to hone their messages and set their agendas to an ever-narrower group of Americans. But it is also seen in a lack of outrage for a system that turns members of Congress into perpetual dinner-party hosts and hostesses for potential contributors. It is seen in a cynicism that allows politicians to do no better than anyone expects them to.

Presidential candidates Al Gore, Bill Bradley and, most vociferously, John McCain have talked about the need to reform a system that more and more allows — or in some cases requires — corporations to channel unlimited amounts of money through the political parties to candidates, with the requisite payback expected during the next session of Congress. But even Sen. McCain’s popular reform measure, slimmed down to offend the fewest number of senators, could not overcome a filibuster. Congressional leaders won’t accept the limits — and the public expects no better.

For the reform-minded, the best hope remains the states. Not only have reforms similar to Maine’s Clean Elections Act passed elsewhere, Chief Judge Brock Hornby of the Federal District Court here recently had the opportunity to explain why such reforms were constitutionally strong. In a ruling earlier this month, he concluded Maine’s reasonable public-financing plan for state-level candidates provided incentives to make this route attractive “but the incentives are hardly overwhelming or of an order that can be said to create profound disparities.”

The Maine system, adopted by voters in 1996, does not inhibit speech, as opponents argued; it provides a chance for more speech. Judge Hornby properly rejected the argument by plaintiffs, which included the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Right to Life PAC, that, he said, concluded “there is no point in speaking if your opponent gets to be heard as well.”

Judge Hornby, however, did find sympathy for a point raised by plaintiffs that has been a weakness in the Clean Elections Act since its beginning. Candidates who qualified for public funding would be considered clean under the act, while the opposite label could be hung on candidates who chose not to use public funding. Judge Hornby warned that a state must tread carefully in labeling candidates, noting that the state’s election commission “has had some discomfort of its own and has sought to defuse the issue” by labeling qualified candidates as “certified” rather than “clean.” The word change is an important improvement and should be supported by both sides.

Federal campaign-finance reform will come if enough voters approve state-level reform and possibly not until then. That makes a ruling in favor of Maine’s reform particularly welcome in this long effort to reduce the overwhelming influence of money in politics.