NOT READY FOR CONGRESS

Even as Maine is sorting out whether the benefits of its public campaign funding has been worth the cost, advocates at the federal level are trying to bring the system to Congress. They are, at best, about a decade too soon.

The benefits of public financing are clearest at the legislative level, where challengers with little or no experience take on part-time legislators in affordable races that still depend heavily on door-to-door campaigning. A few thousand dollars can make a difference in those races, and would-be politicians with little fundraising experience and even less desire to get that experience can be successful in races with help from Maine’s Clean Election Fund.

But already Maine has seen problems with the fund, as leadership PACs and third-party advertising skirt the intent of the law, if not the letter, and create distrust in the system. Voters could rightly wonder why they are paying for publicly financed campaigns when privately raised dollars seem nearly as important to the outcome of a race.

The issues are even more pressing at the gubernatorial level, where the campaigns are much more expensive and the candidates, generally, are more experienced. Just watching the state Democratic Party and the Republican Governors Association stump for their candidates last year without triggering matching dollars for publicly funded candidates was enough to make anyone suspicious of the system.

Maine can further refine its process, clarify its rules and use experience to guide standards for which candidates receive public dollars. That will take time and plenty of revisions. But imagine how quickly federal-level campaign staffs could find ways to get around the state system, and make a mockery of both the federal and the state effort.

The federal proposal, introduced by Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., uses a similar method of $5 qualifying contributions to make candidates eligible for public funding and media vouchers. In return, candidates would agree to abide by spending limits and to decline to accept private contributions.

The idea behind the bill is welcome – elevate the importance of average voters over the constant demand for candidates to raise money. But as Maine and other states with public funding have found, where politics and money intersect, creative campaigners can find all kinds of ways to get around the rules. The Senate would do well this year if it could pass a modest e-filing bill to increase transparency of campaign donations.

But it should leave public funding to states, giving them time to work out the details before bringing the system to the prime time of the Senate.