By Jerry Burris
Advertiser Editorial Page Editor

Anyone who thinks that the mess surrounding political campaign financing will be cleared up, once and for all, by that big spending "reform" bill passed by Congress is in for a major disappointment.

Money will continue to find its way to campaigns in ways that really shouldn't be allowed. As sure as some doors are slammed shut by this legislation, others will be opened.

And the basic reason is this: This campaign spending bill, like all such legislation, is written by people who are participants (or victims, if you will) of the system they seek to reform.

There is nothing more laughable than watching elected politicians trying to write laws that would govern or control their own behavior. Oh the nuances! Oh the complications they can see! Potential loopholes line up from here to the horizon.

This is not to say that efforts to rein in the influence of money are without merit. This battle will go on forever, and it should. It's just that so long as money is an advantage in a political campaign, it will find its way into the treasury of the people money favors.

That reality is perfectly captured in the current federal legislation. The cornerstone of this bill is the limitation on so-called "soft money" that can be poured into the national parties. The whole soft-money industry — where corporations, unions and other interest groups put huge sums into the hands of the political parties — is a direct reaction to the contribution limits that were the centerpiece of the post-Watergate spending reforms.

Once contributions to individuals became limited, the money simply found another home.

So where will the money go now? One possibility is the local political parties, who will now be able to collect relatively more of this kind of cash than the national parties.

Or surely someone will come up with a fresh and creative way to spend money that will have the effect of hurting one candidate or helping another without the artifice of so-called "party building" efforts and "issue ads."

Eventually, the political system may come back around to one of two approaches: Revisit the idea of limiting spending (ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court) or look seriously at public financing of political campaigns.

Hawai'i has had experience with both ideas, in a half-hearted sort of way.

We have a system now that offers candidates some level of public money for their campaign if they agree to voluntary spending limits. That has had a modest impact, in part because the public money is usually tapped only by candidates who cannot raise enough to bury their opponent.

And we did have one experiment with mandatory spending limits: The 1974 campaign for governor, in which all candidates were limited to well under $400,000. Despite the lid, all the major candidates managed to mount well-organized, professional statewide campaigns.

Obviously, the price tag would be higher today. But spending limits, honestly (and if necessary) voluntarily observed, might bring the focus back around to where it should be: on the candidates and what they stand for.

Reach Jerry Burris at letters@honoluluadvertiser.com.