During the 1996 referendum campaign on Maine’s Clean Election Act, proponents argued that the system of publicly funded campaigns would do two things to decrease the cynicism infecting politics. It would increase participation by enhancing the ability of lesser-known newcomers to run for office. It would shut off the flow of special-interest money to those elected, at least to those who participate in the voluntary system.

In its first electoral test in 2000, the new law showed promise. Compared to 1998, the number of legislative candidates increased from 407 to 426, the total amount spent on campaigns dropped by 18 percent, the spending disparity between winners and losers shrank by more than half. The door to public office was opening wider, the playing field was being leveled.

The special election last week to fill a vacant Portland-area Senate seat demonstrated two things. With five candidates, three running “Clean,” the law’s influence on participation seems positive. The flow of special-interest money is relentless.

Democrat Michael Brennan, the narrow leader pending challenges to disputed ballots, ran Clean and qualified for $17,528 in public financing, as did Republican Sally Vamvakias and independent Philip Dawson. But the Maine Democratic Party spent more than $45,000 for mailings and ads on Mr. Brennan’s behalf. That, according to the law, triggered additional state disbursements of $35,056 to each of his Clean rivals. The result is that taxpayers shelled out $122,696 for campaigns that attracted all of 7,951 voters, an outrageous public expense of $15.43 per vote. Subtract the unspent Clean money Mr. Dawson will return to the fund, and the per-vote cost will drop to $11.28, an amount the independent aptly describes as “obscene.”

Republicans also fudged – Maine Unlimited, a political action committee that supports GOP candidates, shoved more than 10,000 privately raised dollars Ms. Vamvakias’ way. At least they had the courtesy of keeping it below the threshold that requires a public match.

There are several things wrong with this. For the Clean Election Act to work, candidates who sign up must see it not as just one more source of money, but as a pledge. The courts have made it clear that the First Amendment protects campaign spending by special interests, but that does not mean that candidates must accept the help. It may be unheard of for candidates to reject independent expenditures by private-sector supporters, but the first-in-the-nation publicly financed campaign law just might require some similarly groundbreaking ethics. The intent of the matching-funds provision was to allow Clean candidates to keep pace with well-financed, privately funded opponents, not to create the potential for double-dipping.

But beyond pledges, ethics, intent and all that mushy stuff, there is a practical reason this is wrong. Maine simply cannot afford elections that cost the public $15.43 or $11.28 or even $7.95 per vote. It was less than $1 in 2000; this hyperinflation cannot be explained merely by the newness of law back then. A loophole has been found and special interests – and politicians and political parties – will exploit it unless it is mended.

Defenders of the Clean Election Act say this excessive spending was a one-time thing; with the two parties tied in the Senate, this special election was uncommonly important and attracted spending unlikely to occur again. That is little more than wishful thinking;

it ignores the clear and demonstrated trend toward increasingly expensive, media-driven campaigns. The days when $4,000 and going door-to-door would get you in the Maine Legislature are, sadly, fast disappearing.

The only practical answer is to decouple public funding from private – a Clean candidate would get a fixed amount of money, regardless of how much privately funded opponents spent. This could, of course, lead to disparities in spending, but the alternative is a double-dipping, deceptive degradation of a law approved by voters with specific expectations. Which would be a poor outcome for a something that was supposed to treat cynicism.