A wobbly start for public campaign financing.

Given a choice between preserving wildlife and financing political campaigns with their checkoffs and add-ons, most voters go with the bald eagles.

One problem with efforts to support state political campaigns with public money is the proliferation of other causes vying for taxpayer contributions. More serious obstacles are the small amount of money available from public sources, and taxpayers' ignorance about how tax checkoffs and add-ons work.

Checkoffs on state income tax forms allow citizens to allocate a dollar or more of their taxes to a political fund. Add-ons let taxpayers donate a portion of their refund to campaigns or other causes. Checkoffs don't increase citizens' tax liability--the donations come out of taxes they would pay anyway; add-ons, or surcharges, are voluntary contributions above the amount owed.

The move toward campaign finance reform at the federal level began as a reaction to Watergate. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974 allows taxpayers to use a checkoff on their federal income tax forms to divert $1 of their taxes from the general fund to the presidential campaign fund. Within five years after Watergate, 17 states had passed public financing legislation, many based on the federal law.

Twelve states currently have checkoffs to support political campaigns: Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, Utah and Wisconsin. Taxpayers can designate $1 of their taxes (in six states), $5 (in two states) or amounts in between (four states) for financing elections. When couples file a joint return, they can double the amount of the designation.

The money from checkoffs is distributed by state formulas to candidates, political parties or both. In Michigan, New Jersey and Rhode Island, only gubernatorial candidates receive checkoff money. Hawaii includes not only the governor, but also state senators and representatives, the prosecuting attorney, mayors and other local officials--thus considerably reducing the amount available to any one candidate. In Wisconsin, candidates for governor and the Legislature are eligible.

In Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, North Carolina, Ohio and Utah, the political parties receive the money from the checkoff. Since 1988, however, North Carolina has also had an add-on program that provides money to candidates. Minnesota gives most of the money raised by checkoffs to candidates, but 10 percent goes to the parties; Rhode Island also divides checkoff money between candidates and parties.

Only Minnesota and Wisconsin provide significant support to legislative candidates. In 1990, 233 candidates for election to the Minnesota House shared $837,232 in public funds distributed according to the amount contributed to the candidate's party from his or her district. The most a candidate received was $11,438; the least, $966. A House candidate's spending was limited to about $20,000. Senatorial candidates, who had to agree to a $41,000 spending limit, divided $1.3 million in grants that ranged from about $3,000 to $27,684.

Wisconsin candidates accepting public funding in 1990 received grants of up to $6,521 from the $462,110 designated for Assembly campaigns. Senate candidates received up to $15,525 from the $133,469 allocated.

That isn't enough for many campaigns, says Dave Travis, majority leader in the Wisconsin Assembly. "Candidates in tough races just don't accept public financing when they can raise more than the spending limits," Travis says. "Our public financing system isn't funded well enough to make it attractive to candidates who feel they must spend big bucks."

Nine states have add-on programs: Alabama, Arizona, California, Maine, Massachusetts, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon and Virginia. Five states allow contributions ranging from $1 to $25; four don't limit the amount.

In three states--Massachusetts, Montana and North Carolina--the contributions are distributed to candidates for statewide office. In the other six states, the money goes to the parties.

In 1987, the most money raised for campaigns by a checkoff was $1.8 million in Minnesota where the amount designated was increased from $1 to $5 that year. Next highest were Michigan's $1.6 million and New Jersey's $1.4 million. Idaho collected only $39,328. The highest amount raised through an add-on program in 1987 was $233,152 in California; Montana brought in the least, $2,403.

The notion of soliciting contributions on the tax form began in California in the early 1980s with an add-on for a wildlife fund, and many states have adopted the technique. Because political campaigns must compete with other funds, some of which have been on the forms longer, campaigns often don't fare well. In North Carolina in 1988, for example, the Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Fund received $486,525, compared with $19,331 for the Candidates Financing Fund.

Officials explain that the disparity may not be due entirely to the broader appeal of bald eagles, peregrine falcons and sea turtles. The wildlife designation had been on the form for five years while the campaign fund was new that year. Unlike the candidates' fund, the wildlife program and the add-on option supporting it also were widely publicized. The wording on the tax form appealed to the need to preserve our natural heritage; the candidates' fund option dryly explained only that the contributions "will be used in political campaigns of certified candidates for the North Carolina Council of State."

Because checkoffs don't come out of taxpayers' refunds, they do better than add-ons. In Rhode Island in 1987, the checkoff for political parties received 46 percent of the contributions, compared to the add-on programs' 18 percent for the Olympics, 18 percent for wildlife, 17 percent for organ transplants and 1 percent for arts and tourism.

Taxpayer enthusiasm for participation in both checkoffs and add-ons seems to be low, however. In 1987 participation in state checkoff programs averaged 16.3 percent, ranging from 5.2 percent of taxpayers in Kentucky to 31.8 percent in New Jersey. Twenty-one percent of federal taxpayers checked the box for the presidential fund checkoff that year. Participation in add-on programs averaged 1.2 percent and ranged from 0.3 percent in California to 2.3 percent in Massachusetts. During the 1980s, participation in public campaign financing programs dropped dramatically--by 20 percent in New Jersey and 50 percent in Michigan, for example.

"While polls sometimes show that the voters support public funding in the abstract," writes campaign reform expert Herbert Alexander, "it seems that they cannot overcome a general distrust of public subsidies to politicians when it comes time to exercise their option as taxpayers to check off a dollar or so."

Alexander suggests several options for keeping public financing alive.

* Increase the checkoff. Minnesota doubled the money collected through the checkoff when it raised the amount to be allocated from $1 to $5. Even though participation had decreased by about one-third, the number of taxpayers participating in the checkoff didn't decrease any more after the amount was raised.

* Use legislative appropriations. New Jersey directs money from the checkoff to the general fund. The Legislature appropriates the money needed to finance the gubernatorial race, which costs more than the checkoff brings in.

* Educate the public. In four Wisconsin counties where Common Cause used public service spots and brochures to encourage voters to use the checkoff, participation increased 2 percent. "If public funding systems are to thrive...states must be willing to do more to educate the taxpayers than simply placing a brief informational statement inside tax forms," Alexander says.

Alexander also suggests restricting the use of competing tax add-ons and offering tax credits and deductions to encourage small donations from citizens.

Karen Fisher is book editor for the National Conference of State Legislatures.