Armageddon it isn’t. Fortunately or unfortunately, contrary to House Speaker Dennis Hastert, recently enacted campaign finance reforms won’t cripple the Republican Party. Nor will they alter the basic axiom of American politics, the dependence of both political parties on corporate and personal wealth.

These reforms plug one inequity in our electoral system only to open others. The new law does limit soft-money contributions. Wealthy people no longer will be able to make unlimited contributions to national political parties, which then advertise extensively on behalf of their favored candidates. Yet in order to garner support for this reform, the new law makes other concessions. It expands from $1,000 to $2,000 the amount of money one can contribute directly to a candidate. And soft-money contributions denied the national parties could now go to state parties in an amount up to $10,000 per state. State parties cannot use these funds to support candidates for federal office, but wealthy local parties will be in a better position to build a strong stable of candidates on which the national parties can draw.

Soft-money contributions to state parties promise to shape American politics in a second way. In an era where national politics has become more conservative, a few state governments have moved modestly to counter the trend. These states have enacted minimum wage laws in excess of federal standards or sought to devise more generous children’s health or job training programs. More ambitiously, here in Maine some activists hope to enact a state single-payer health insurance system. We can now anticipate substantial efforts by corporate interests to snuff out such progressive initiatives through soft money contributions to state parties.

Seen in tandem, the higher ceiling on hard money contributions and the new soft money loophole will preserve the class skew in U.S. politics. Many American citizens give a few dollars to the candidate of their choice, but very few are able to pony up $2,000 to a candidate-and perhaps another $10,000 to a state party. Those who inhabit that rarefied air will now enjoy even more political access.

The new law raises other difficult issues. I agree with Washington Post columnist David Broder that, “The most dubious parts of the measure are those regulating ‘issue ads’ that nonparty groups run during election campaigns. These provisions implicate basic First Amendment rights.” Limiting issue ads that cite individual candidate’s records is a clear attempt to shape the content of political speech and should be found unconstitutional. This Supreme Court is likely to make such a finding.

Another unfortunate outcome of this law will likely be that most political insiders will pronounce the issue resolved. Opponents will look forward to court challenge and reform supporters will argue they did the best they could.

Once again, significant progress will depend on state-level politics. Public financing of elections provides a more egalitarian approach to election finance without as serious risks to political speech. Speech is not money, and the ability of candidates or causes to be heard should not depend on access to money. Candidates who can garner a reasonable minimum of small seed contributions or even petition signatures should be able to have their voices heard.

Initial experiences with public financing have been positive. In both Maine and Arizona, public financing enabled more contested races and allowed more women and minority candidates to run on a more level playing field. Here in Maine, provisions have even been made for additional compensatory public funds to support clean money candidates facing exceptionally well-funded nonparticipating candidates.

The cost of providing adequate matching funds has become the most serious problem for public funding advocates. Even in Maine, some wealthy candidates have spent sums far in excess of the current public maximum. Elections everywhere would cost less if television and radio had not become private fiefdoms buttressed by monopoly power and subsidized by federal largesse. But until federal legislation guarantees access to inexpensive TV time for qualified candidates, states will have to pay more if they want to guarantee a level playing field without imposing questionable limits on political speech. In politics as in life, within a capitalist society, you get what you pay for. If states are miserly in their provision of public funds, fewer candidates will go that route and the public system will wither.

Unfortunately, campaign finance opponents often portray public financing as “welfare for politicians.” American politics stands today in an ugly Catch-22. Citizens do not respect political leaders and some refuse to invest in the steps necessary to foster greater integrity. Not surprisingly, the process itself becomes more dependent on the contributions of a few and less worthy in the eyes of citizens. With an economic system in need of broader public scrutiny, it has never been more important to find a way out of this dilemma.

John Buell is a political economist who lives in Southwest Harbor. Readers wishing to contact him may e-mail messages to jbuell@acadia.com.