Public apathy is a problem in Hawai'i, as seen in low voter turnout and the chronic difficulty in enticing the community's brightest minds into government elections.

Obviously, no single initiative can reverse this downward spiral, but one way to cultivate new leadership is to remove some of the barriers between the public and government.

Among these barriers: money. The cost of mounting a campaign, especially one to unseat an incumbent, is enough to push government's door shut for most people.

It drives away candidates who may have good ideas but little connection to the well-moneyed interest groups that can finance their campaign.

Or, it drives them into the arms of donors who are sure to come calling for favors once they are elected.

This is the ailment that "clean elections" advocates hope to remedy. This year's version of the legislation is House Bill 661, a measure backed by Hawaii Clean Elections and other grassroots organizations, as well as by the Democratic Party of Hawai'i.

It aims to establish a more comprehensive public funding system than what currently exists as an alternative means of financing election campaigns. Candidates now have an option to tap the publicly supported Hawai'i Election Campaign Fund, but are free to supplement that with conventional fundraising events and to accept donations.

HB 661 would give candidates for the state's four county councils an additional option that would all but bar conventional financing. Those who qualify would be given enough money from the same public fund to run a competitive campaign.

The amount of the allowance would be calculated based on the actual costs of running successful campaigns in their district in past election cycles. Up to a prescribed limit, publicly financed campaigns are given additional "matching" funds if their opponent outspends them.

It's tempting to point out the irony of state lawmakers imposing a new system not on themselves but on county councils; the original form of the bill would have established the option for state House of Representatives races.

Although it's a bit of an artful dodge by lawmakers, it's a defensible one. Unlike the primary-general twin races in House districts, county council races are nonpartisan. Unless there's a runoff, candidates run once per cycle. Public financing would then be less of a drain on the fund.

As a kind of pilot project, it makes practical sense to try out public financing at the county level.

Various misgivings about the initiative — worries that candidates could tap out the public fund before it can be recharged — have not been borne out in states that already have "voter-owned" elections. These are Maine, Arizona, North Carolina. Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico and Vermont.

The Campaign Spending Commission also argues that the state Constitution authorizes partial funding, not full campaign financing; officials advocate instead that the current campaign allotments simply be bumped up.

But supporters make a persuasive case that because candidates have to raise a small fund to qualify, HB 661 should not require a constitutional amendment.

Besides, simply tweaking the current system addresses the problem only weakly. If there's to be any hope for restoring vibrancy to Hawai'i's elections, we need a stronger boost than that.

Voters should have a chance to buy access to the political process, since they have to pay for what comes out. The first step is to knock on the door, and let lawmakers know it's important that they get that chance.