ETHICS / AFTER THE HATCHET JOB : Can’t Live With Money--or Without : City Council squabbling gutted an earlier proposal; it can redeem itself by sending the reform package to the voters.

Last month’s debate on ethics reform did not show the Los Angeles City Council at its best. A debate that began in 1989 with Mayor Tom Bradley’s conflict-of-interest problems somehow degenerated into a squabble over the integrity of council members who were not in any way involved with the mayor’s troubles.

When the smoke cleared, the proposed ethics reform package had been butchered, with the heart of the package--campaign finance reform--torn out of it.

Today the council will have the opportunity to reverse its direction. I intend to ask my colleagues to bite the bullet and give voters a chance to enact a political reform package combining strict limits on campaign spending and limited public financing as an alternative to raising campaign money from special interests.

Money is the root of the problem. Politicians can’t live without money because the cost of reaching out to the voters in a contested campaign is outrageously high--and continues to grow.

On the other hand, it’s becoming increasingly clear that politicians can’t live with the need for money, either, as evidenced by the current scandals in Washington, Sacramento and City Hall. In order to reduce the lure of corruption, we have to reduce the need for money.

The Supreme Court has ruled that it is a violation of the First Amendment to arbitrarily limit campaign spending. Instead, we must create an incentive for candidates to do so voluntarily. The only incentive the Supreme Court accepts is matching public funds.

In the ordinance I am proposing, a candidate can only receive matching funds for contributions of $250 or less that he or she receives from individuals--not corporations. Further, in order to qualify, a candidate must agree to a schedule of legitimate public debates with his or her challengers.

That means candidates would be free to appeal directly to the voters they hope to govern--not the people who hope to influence the political process with their contributions. It also means that the voter can be assured that a substantial amount of the money raised by a candidate is public money, untainted by private interests seeking to influence the decision-maker.

But it does not mean that any lunatic off the street can use tax dollars to finance a campaign. To qualify for funds, a council candidate must first raise $25,000--and a citywide candidate must raise $100,000--in individual contributions. If a Nazi or Klan member can do that in Los Angeles, we have bigger problems than ethics reform can solve.

As for the argument that public financing is too costly, I can only ask how much the recent ethics scandals have cost this city. That cost should be calculated not only in dollars but in the confidence of the people in their elected officials. And how much has it cost us to elect politicians who serve private interests before the public good?

In order to further limit the cost to the public, my proposed ordinance caps matching funds at $2 million a year. Given a total city budget of $3.2 billion a year, this amount is less than 1%.

Essentially, campaign finance reform is a relatively inexpensive way to make public office attainable for serious candidates who don’t have the backing of moneyed interests seeking to influence government for their own gain. It increases the likelihood that the voters would be able to choose candidates who are not indebted to private interests.

The experience in Seattle is a good example. When public financing became available, more women ran for office, more minorities ran for office. In fact, there were more candidates, period. And they spent less per race. As a result, people in Seattle had real choices in the voting booth, and they were confident the candidates represented them and not some unnamed bankroller.

People in Los Angeles deserve the same confidence. They deserve the most ethical government they can elect.

The council’s last pass at the ethics reform package was a hatchet job, but today we have the opportunity to redeem ourselves and take the high road to campaign finance reform.