In a fit of electoral reform a few years ago, Maine authorized public financing for political campaigns. The Pine Tree State led the nation.

At the time of the referendum that set in motion this “clean elections” law, the sponsors proposed two main justifications that would, they hoped, enhance and make sin-free the performance of politicians by: a. removing the influence of “special interest” money, and b. encouraging participation by more candidates – with its attendant values of greater voter turnout and increased challenges to incumbents.

In the most recent election, the state bestowed an average of $25,000 on state Senate wannabees, $6,500 on House hunters and assuaged several gubernatorial cravings to the tune of approximately $1 million each. Including administration, the program cost 7 million bucks – enough to buy a worthwhile number of computers for a fair number of middle-schoolers.

By now, the procedure is mature enough to review, and a number of opinions have jelled. Three judges might be consulted: the press, the participants and the public.

Looking from under their green eyeshades, most newspapers seem wild about the idea – best thing since sliced bread. Incumbent pols themselves share this swell view. All but a handful think it splendid. (One might note in passing that a large majority of them are now using the free money, which essentially proves that most bus riders would travel more if there were free tokens.) While the first two judges have voted aye, we have to wait a bit on the third judge. Unless one bases opinion on the less than 2 percent of taxpayers who checked off the income tax box specified for this purpose, the public has not really been heard from.

But there are rumblings.

A few are surprised at the dollar totals involved. Some are concerned about loopholes that allow legislative leaders and political parties to disembowel the law. There are cynics concerned about a burgeoning number candidates, who have little to commend them beyond a desire for employment. And there are a number of misogynists, who object to the use of their money for a candidate they dislike. “If my money were used for George Bush I’d move to Darfur!”

But with or without complete review, there appear two or three results.

1. Public financing has not “cleaned up” the influence of “dirty money.” Even the most fervid “reformer” would be hard put to identify an instance in Maine where such chicanery was even alleged, let alone uncovered. Monies given were reported and visible, and power was, and is, too widely disbursed in Augusta to be easily manhandled.

2. Increased participation in the electoral process must also be adjudged bankrupt. The number of Maine contests was in the top 20 percent of states before the law – and it remains in that golden category. There has been a small increase in the number of overall participants, but this number was swelled by casual yearners hankering for a handout. If these fringe challengers are excluded, new candidacies almost exclusively coincide with the ouster of incumbents by term limits (a benefit often unremarked on by office holders themselves). Stated another way, the rate of incumbent retention remains unchanged by the law

3. Nor has it affected voter turnout – it has been the same.

Beyond these results, a couple of byproducts have surfaced. With as many free signs as candidates can want, our lawns and highways have been littered beyond reason. Second, and more importantly, it has benefited Democrats more than Republicans. Business donations have fallen sharply, while union election workers have not been affected. Before this “reform,” it looked for a while as though the GOP was making a comeback in the Legislature – but no such luck. They are falling behind.

Is the procedure a solution in search of a problem?

Rodney Quinn, a Gorham resident, is a freelance writer and former Maine secretary of state.