COLUMN LEFT/ EDMUND G. BROWN JR. : Sham Reforms Perpetuate ‘Greedlock’ : We won’t have truly free elections until we go beyond half measures that rely on wealth.

During my presidential campaign, I asked people to raise their hands if they had never given $1,000 to a political campaign. At hundreds of meetings across the country, virtually the entire audience would raise their hands, usually accompanied by laughter and other signs of shock or disbelief. Except for those with very high incomes, the notion of giving away $1,000 to a politician is unthinkable.

Yet, from my experience as state party chairman, and candidate for governor, U.S. senator and President, I know that our entire campaign system rests on the twin pillars of $1,000 donations--bundled and multiplied 10, 20 or even 100 times--and the repetitive TV ads and endless mailings these $1,000 donations buy.

Bluntly stated, President Clinton’s “most comprehensive reform of the political system in the history of this country” fails utterly to address the only important issue at stake--the grossly disproportionate influence of the rich on American elections.

For example, in House campaigns the Clinton plan permits business-as-usual with $5,000 political-action committee donations and $1,000 personal checks. The so-called spending limits are set at a level higher than the expenditures of 95% of the candidates in the 1992 election. Senate campaign spending limits are pegged in the millions of dollars and candidates may continue to take the coveted $1,000 campaign checks from wealthy individuals. For both House and Senate races, matching funds and free television and mailing are sharply limited, tilting the system decisively to the incumbents’ advantage.

President Clinton and the congressional leadership of both parties are heavily invested in the current system of big bucks from the rich to buy media to smother the opposition. As the American electoral system now functions, it is rare for citizens to experience equal exposure to the candidates. The name of the game is to amass enough money to ensure that the quantity of campaign messages overwhelms the opposition. It is just like selling soap. The more ads, the more sales. In this kind of sales endeavor, money from the top 1% of income earners is the sine qua non.

In such an incumbent-based, money-driven system, genuine debate constantly falls victim to the insatiable drive to obtain disproportionate access to the voter’s mind. It is this evil that the President and the congressional leadership must address.

* To radically reduce the influence of corporate and high-income givers, the $1,000 donation must be cut to $100 and PAC donations outlawed. Florida Gov. Lawton Chiles and I have both demonstrated that such an approach can work.

* Full matching funds must be given for each donation up to $100. This type of system operates without objection in presidential campaigns, and Democrats and Republicans alike gladly avail themselves of the public funds.

* Significant amounts of free broadcast time must be given by each TV and radio station to all primary and general election candidates. The goal must be to achieve robust public debate and equality in the exposure of the candidates to the electorate. Such media exposure should not be paid for, but rather required as a condition of holding a license to broadcast over the public airwaves. The 30- and 10-second TV spot must be prohibited--it is a mindless and destructive perversion of public discourse.

* Free postage for three districtwide mailings should be made available to all candidates in both primary and general elections.

* Low limits on campaign spending should be imposed that reflect the average experience of challengers, not that of the incumbents. With free television and mailings for all candidates, such lower limits become feasible.

“Greedlock” will not be overcome by half measures. True democratic debate and a genuine system of representation can be restored but only if the sham reform proposals before Congress are thoroughly exposed.

For the Democratic leadership, the temptation now is what it has been for many years: Make little changes but keep the system intact, which forces reliance on money from the powerful--the $1,000 givers. For the Republicans, the strategy continues to be: Kill by filibuster every effort to reduce the role of the wealthy when it entails an equal system of free broadcast exposure and matching funds.

For those who want change, not its mere illusion, the challenge is to speak out without fear and let our representatives know that we will settle for nothing less than a system of truly free elections.