The dizzying cost to campaign

ONE REASON Senator Evan Bayh isn't running for president is that it would require him to spend most of his day -- every day -- raising funds. The Indiana Democrat told National Public Radio that something close to 80 percent of his time would have been taken up begging for money. On Friday, former Iowa governor Tom Vilsack dropped out, saying his campaign had "everything except money." Over the years, many other candidates have made the same point.

Yet nearly all of the major presidential candidates running now say they will bypass the public financing system that has been in place since Watergate and strike out on their own. This represents the collapse of a system that has served the nation well, but which Congress, shamefully, allowed to grow obsolete by keeping both grants to candidates and state-by-state spending limits too low.

A warning came in 2004, when both President Bush and Democrat John F. Kerry opted out of public financing for the primaries, though both took it for the general election. The main reason for the system's falling into disuse is the increasing cost of campaigns. As little as three cycles ago, in 1996, the "price of admission" -- the amount that a candidate needed to raise in order to be taken seriously before the primaries started -- was widely said to be $20 million. Now it is $100 million.

Two reasons why the collapse of public funding is so harmful are obvious:

One is that it puts the candidates, including the eventual winner, in hock to the givers and bundlers. Campaign contributions are rarely given out of altruism. Most sizeable donations are investments; the investors expect a return, and they usually get it.

The second is that reliance on huge campaign reserves reduces dramatically the chances of a less well-known candidate such as Bill Clinton to break through.

But a third reason -- Bayh's time complaint -- is equally corrosive. American democracy should not force those who seek its highest office to prostrate themselves for hours upon end cadging campaign money. It is a waste of valuable time that should be spent listening to everyday citizens, not to special pleaders.

There is no chance the system can be repaired for this election. But as the candidates are spending what may total $1 billion by some estimates, Congress should admit its error and act now to revitalize the system for 2012. Legislation that would update both the amounts citizens could earmark through their tax returns, and the amounts given to candidates, has bipartisan support, including from former senators Bill Bradley, Bob Kerrey, Warren Rudman, and Alan Simpson.

What a hopeful sign it would be if Congress gave the bill the prompt enactment it deserves, even as the current presidential campaign, with its endless fund-raisers, demonstrates the need.