The extent to which Connecticut state officials in both the executive and legislative branches were embarrassed by the corruption of the ill-fated Rowland administration can be seen this summer in work of a bipartisan committee desperately seeking a compromise on campaign finance reform. Mr Rowland’s successor, Gov M. Jodi Rell, created the committee when legislative efforts to limit the influence of special interest groups on Connecticut’s statewide elections stalled.

Frankly, campaign finance reform is predisposed to stall, since those empowered to enact reforms are the main beneficiaries of the status quo. Money always chases power, and the current system is designed to reelect those who are already in power. But nearly every elected official in Hartford publicly professed to be “shocked… shocked!” by the cozy relationships with lobbyists and state contractors that took root in the Rowland administration. Now they must do something — anything — so they can claim they were not part of the problem but part of the solution when they go to the voters next year.

The lawmakers are trying to reconcile the conflicting reform legislation that came out of the House and Senate in the last session; one main sticking point is whether to initiate reforms this year or in 2010. Both bills would outlaw contributions by lobbyists and state contractors, eliminate the use of advertising booklets for fundraising, and institute a voluntary system for public financing of campaigns.

The prohibitions will cost nothing. The public financing will cost $8 million to $10 million a year, or roughly $35 million to $40 million in a four-year statewide election cycle. The money is supposed to level the playing field for those who would challenge incumbents. Maybe so, but if public financing comes to pass, never will so much public money be spent on something of so little value to the public.

Think about it. Most campaign funds are spent on advertising. When was the last time you saw a campaign ad that substantively advanced your understanding of an election issue or of a candidate’s true position on that issue? Sadly, the most effective campaign ads for a candidate are negative attacks on an opponent — which happens to the least useful type of information for the voter. And for this, the bipartisan committee is scouring the state’s various revenue streams for $8 million or $10 million a year? It’s bad enough that so much private money is spent on distortions and half-truths in the course of a campaign, but to have the public foot the bill for its own deception does not seem like a useful reform to us.

It would be far better to award that money jointly to a candidate and his or her opponent to be spent on radio and/or television airtime for face-to-face discussions of the issues. Think how much nicer it would be in October 2006 to tune into a nightly debate between candidates than to once again watch them sling mud without question or challenge in endless repetitions of a scripted 30-second rant. That is the kind of reform we could support.