WASHINGTON__Once again, Congress is veering off-course as it tries to satisfy the demand for campaign finance reform. The bill passed last week by the Senate creates as many problems as it solves and a new bipartisan effort in the House threatens to become a further detour.

The basic problem in all this is the premise that too much money is spent electing our public officials. The Senate debate echoed with repeated assertions that “cutting the cost of campaigns is the real test of reform.” The fact that congressional races cost $678 million in 1992, a stunning 52 percent increase over 1990, was cited as proof that “the money chase” in politics is out of control.

No question, there is an inherent absurdity—if not, as reformers like to say, obscenity—in the spectacle of so many politicians putting the arm on so many contributors for the privilege of writing big checks to television stations for their ads. Measures to mandate greater access to the public airways and reduced ad rates for candidates make sense.

But keep it in perspective. As Sen. Mitch McConnell (R.Ky.), leader of the opposition to the Senate bill, pointed out, the cost of the congressional campaign was not much larger than what Americans spent last year on bubble gum and about one-fifth of the advertising budget for automobiles.

Communication is the heart of campaign politics, and candidates are competing, not just with each other, but with all the other messages being beamed at the American public. The added cost of the 1992 campaign was the direct byproduct of a very desirable change—a marked increase in competition. There were 1,200 more congressional candidates in 1992 than in 1990—a 63 percent increase. It is illogical to welcome the infusion of energy and ideas represented by the largest freshman class in 44 years and condemn the cost of their campaigns.

But the premise of the Senate bill is that spending must be curbed. The Supreme Court has held that in campaigns, spending is equivalent to speech and cannot, under the First Amendment to the Constitution, be curbed unless the candidate voluntarily accepts spending limits.

The dilemma has long since been solved for presidential elections by instituting a system of taxpayer-financed campaigns for candidates who accept the fairly generous spending limits. The Supreme Court has given that system its blessing, and since it began, every major party nominee (but not the independent Ross Perot) has accepted both the public financing and spending limits. Presidential races have been highly competitive; challengers have beaten incumbents in three of the taxpayer-financed presidential campaigns. The system works.

Nonetheless, congressional Republicans like McConnell (and a significant number of conservative Democrats) have raised a huge stink about extending Bush’s veto of a bill for partial public financing of congressional races and this year, their threat of a filibuster in the Senate forced democrats to strip virtually all the public financing provisions out of the measure.

The Republican filibuster and the Democratic preoccupation with spending limits combined to create a bill that is impractical and very likely unconstitutional. It sets spending limits and enforces them by imposing a confiscatory 33 percent tax on campaign funds raised by any candidate who breaks the ceiling. In the name of reform, the bill would also make it illegal for like-minded individuals—be they union members, environmentalists, gun-owners, feminists or foes for abortion—to contribute to candidates through a political-action committee (PAC). It does little to enhance the role of political parties and denies them one major source of funding for their grassroots activities.

Recognizing the infirmities of the Senate bill, a number of House Democrats and Republicans, led by Reps. Mike Synar (D-Okla.) and Bob Livingston (R-La.), who have widely differing views on what would ideally be done with campaign finance laws, have come together on a bare-bones bill that would restrict the flow of money by reducing the limits on both individual and PAC contributions. It might indirectly benefit challengers by making it harder for incumbents to raise big war chests, but it does nothing to reduce the many other advantages incumbents enjoy through their newsletter, district offices, etc.

The Synar-Livingston approach will cut the cost of campaigns, but the price is likely to be a reduction in the overall level of visibility, participation and competition in our politics. It is a proposal for shrinking politics more than a way of improving it.

Few politicians in today’s cynical climate want to tell the voters the truth: If you want competitive politics, make up your mind that it is going to be relatively expensive. And understand, as well, that the cleanest source of that money is your own tax dollars. Democracy, like other good things, is not cost-free.