EDITORIAL : REPUGNANT REMEDIES SOME EFFORTS TO `REFORM' POLITICAL CAMPAIGNS GO TOO FAR.

MUCH of what goes on in American political campaigns and fund raising smells to high heaven. But the same can be said about many proposals being represented as reforms; some of them are more hazardous than the abuses.

There were two examples of the latter in Washington on Tuesday. One was a mind-boggling measure to change the First Amendment, the portion of the Bill of Rights that protects free speech, to allow Congress to set spending and contribution limits on federal campaigns.

The other was a proposal by some Democratic senators, including John Glenn of Ohio, John Kerry of Massachusetts and Paul Wellstone of Minnesota, to replace private campaign money with federal tax dollars.

Fortunately, the proposal to amend the First Amendment (the courts have likened campaign spending to free speech) was soundly defeated, 61-38, with most of the votes on the losing side coming from Democrats.

``All other kinds of speech, even pornography and flag burning, would have more protection than political discourse after this amendment, because, you see, this amendment would grant Congress the power to shut everybody up,'' said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., who led the opposition to the measure.

McConnell's characterization of the measure by Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., and Sen. Arlen Spector, R-Pa., was mostly on the mark. And much of what he said about the dangers of limiting the First Amendment would be applicable to the public-financing measure if it would tend to restrict the right of individuals to support their views with their own money.

But the thing that's likely to irritate the taxpayers most of all is the prospect of having some of their money used to subsidize political campaigns, especially the sleazy attack ads and outright distortions that frequently clutter up the airwaves at election time. What, the taxpayers are entitled to demand, have the grasping politicians done to earn the money, much less use it in such a contemptible way?

Precious little, we say.

Besides, many of the recent abuses involving President Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, the Democratic National Committee and House Speaker Newt Gingrich were against the law anyway. That, in turn, suggests that much can be done under existing laws to clean up the process - providing the laws are enforced. There is no need to tamper with the First Amendment or start a new program to drain the public treasury.

Finally, it's useful to keep in mind that much of the impetus for special-interest donations is generated by the politicians themselves. Washington increases the stakes just about every time it enacts a new law or regulation. Indeed, many congressional committee assignments are prized because of the leverage that they give members to squeeze contributions from directly affected interests.