The public should finance election campaigns.

Why is the U.S. government spending money for another B-2 bomber? Having paid more than $60 billion on developing and building B-2s since the early 1980s, the program has long since turned into a budgetary behemoth. An independent study commissioned by Congress concluded last year that B-2s are too expensive and more bombers are not necessary. Even the Pentagon said they did not want any more B-2 bombers.

Yet when the 1996 defense budget came to the House and Senate floors last year, members of Congress voted to appropriate $493 million for an additional B-2. How did this happen?

Last year, the political action committee of Northrup Grumman, which builds the B-2, donated $320,775 to members of Congress - almost doubling what it had spent in 1993 and 1994. In the month of June, when a separate amendment to strip funding from the B-2 almost passed in the House, Northrup Grumman gave $75,200 in campaign contributions to representatives; only $2,000 went to members who opposed funding the program.

This is a perfect example of the not-so-insidious influence of money in our political system - a system in which corporations can buy" legislation in their favor, and a system that is in desperate need of reform.

Why should Catholics be concerned? "One of the principles of Catholic social teaching is, that we must participate in the decisions that affect our lives," says Sister Richelle Friedman, P.V.M.B., a lobbyist with Network, a Catholic social-justice lobbying organization in Washington. In the present system, the voices of low-income and poor people are not being heard. The voices that are being heard are those who have paid for the privilege."

Unfortunately, no one in Congress has any incentive to change the way campaigns are financed, because once candidates are elected into office, the current system works greatly to their benefit. Congressional incumbents receive four times as much money from political action committees (PACs) as their challengers do. PACs are fundraising organizations through which corporations can legally donate money to federal campaigns. "There are 535 experts on campaign finance reform in Washington," says Ellen Miller, executive director for the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics (CRP) in Washington, D.C. "But as much as they hate the system, they have all mastered it. They know that the current system gives them an advantage, and that reform goes against their self-interest."

In the 1994 elections, almost 70 percent of the money raised by winning candidates came from PACs or from large individual contributors - most of whom were affiliated with big business. For example, employees of Northrup Grumman and other B-2 contractors donated $233,212 to congressional candidates in the 1993-1994 election cycle.

Then there is "soft money" - contributions to the two major parties that are spent for the candidates' benefit. Add all this up, and it is clear that most congressional campaign have been almost entirely financed by corporate interests.

And the cost of getting reelected keeps rising. Congressional candidates spent $777 million in 1994, a 20 percent increase over the last election cycle, according to CRP. A winning seat cost an average of $516,000 in the House and $4.6 million in the Senate. For a House candidate who raised $250,000 or less, the odds against winning were 18 to 1. Former Senator Barry Goldwater (R.-Ariz.) said, "Senators and representatives, faced incessantly with the need to raise ever more funds to fuel their campaigns, can scarcely avoid weighing every decision against the question, 'How will this affect my fundraising prospects?' rather than 'How will this affect the national interest?'"

If you are still skeptical that all this money influences legislation, consider these examples:

* The Telecommunications Act that passed earlier this year was praised by members of Congress for increasing competition in the industry, and thereby lowering prices and improving service, but the new law actually deregulates the industry and encourages telecommunication conglomerates to pursue further mergers, which can only allow prices to rise. Telecommunications PACs contributed more than $3.5 million to congressional candidates in 1995. The two largest recipients in Congress in the first half of the year were also the most influential in passing the legislation - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Larry Pressler (R.-S.D.) received $103,165 from telecom PACs, and House Telecommunications and Finance Subcommittee Chairman Jack Fields (R.-Tex.) was given $97,500.

* In June 1995, House Republican Conference Chairman John Boehner of Ohio passed out checks from tobacco lobbyists to his colleagues on the House floor during a debate. A few weeks later, House members rejected an amendment to prohibit federal funds from going to crop insurance for tobacco. Members who supported the tobacco industry on this vote had received four times as much that year in tobacco-related contributions as those who opposed it.

* Senator Slade Gorton (R.-Wash.j allowed lobbyists representing the timber, mining, utility, and other industries - whose PACs had donated $30,000 to his reelection campaign - to write a new version of the Endangered Species Act, which he was introducing in the Senate. The bill, which never made it out of committee, reduced both the reach and the enforcement of the law by, for instance, preventing the federal government from restricting land use to protect the habitat of endangered species.

The problem is, with all the special interests represented in Washington, there are few lobbyists speaking out for the poor and homeless, the environment, immigrants, or the unemployed. Of the 1,179 PACs that contributed $20,000 or more to congressional campaigns in the 1994 election cycle, none represented these groups or lobbied for their causes. As for individual contributions, only 900,000 people (less than one third of 1 percent of the U.S. population) gave more than $200 to congressional campaigns in the 1991-1992 election cycle, and these composed 81 percent of the total donated by individuals.

As a result, there is a very limited field of political options in Washington, and most of them favor the wealthy, because that is to whom our representatives in Congress are ultimately accountable - not their constituents and definitely not the poor. That's why U.S. corporations' share of all federal taxes fell from 39 percent in the 1950s to 17 percent in the 1980s. That's why comprehensive health-care reform goes nowhere in Washington - its demise in Congress is virtually mandated by the big money contributors who oppose it. It's no wonder the American public has lost faith in big government and that voter turnout is so low. And none of this will change until campaign finance reforms are enacted.

The best way to implement comprehensive reform would be to offer full public financing of all congressional campaigns. There are a few campaign-finance reform bills in Congress now, but even if any showed promise of ever passing, none advocate public financing. Anything less leaves too many loopholes. Eliminating PAC contributions, for example, would only mean more big-money individual contributions from special-interest donors.

The United States is one of only three developed democratic countries that has neither public financing nor spending limits for its national legislative campaigns. But we do have public financing in our presidential elections - candidates are eligible for partial funding (matching funds) in primaries and full funding in the general election. All the funds are raised through the voluntary checkoff on the federal income-tax form.

In return, candidates agree to limit campaign spending to a fixed amount. Although the 1976 Supreme Court case Buckley v. Valeo declared it unconstitutional to place spending limits on political campaigns, it upheld voluntary spending limits in exchange for receiving public financing. Therefore, presidential candidates who accept public financing (which is all of them) agree to $37 million spending limits in the primary and $62 million in the general election.

Not that the presidential elections are in any way an exemplary system. Counting independent expenditures, soft money, and money raised in the primary, the subsidy only accounted for 35 percent of all spending in the 1988 presidential election. Still, there is no reason congressional elections could not be financed publicly. In fact, there is a campaign-finance referendum on the November ballot in Maine that would be an excellent model for congressional or presidential elections.

According to this proposal, candidates for governor or the state legislature would:

* relinquish the right to accept private donations in exchange for a set amount of campaign funding from the Clean Elections Fund;

* receive limited one-to-one matching funds if the candidate is outspent by an opponent;

* agree to an established limit on how early they could start campaigning;

* agree to return unspent funds to the Clean Elections Fund;

* demonstrate that they have public support by collecting a set number of $5 contributions, which would then go into the public fund. (Can you imagine presidential or senatorial candidates collecting $5 donations? Now that would be grassroots campaigning: "Well, Senator Incumbent, I'd love to donate $5 to your reelection campaign, but explain to me again why you voted to cut welfare last year.")

The cost of such a system would not necessarily be great. The initiative in Maine would be funded by state-office budget cuts, lobbying registration fees, and a voluntary checkoff on state income-tax forms. For congressional campaigns, the money could be found. And it would be worth it.

Though the system would have to be voluntary, candidates could be encouraged to accept public financing by implementing reforms such as decreasing contribution limits, banning soft money, guaranteeing free broadcast time (every other developed democratic country provides their candidates with free media time), and enacting loan limits (wealthy candidates can virtually buy their way into office by loaning their campaigns unlimited funds).

Because less time would be spent raising money, public financing would give candidates more time to address the issues and learn about their voter's concerns. It could even cut down on negative campaigning. "The problem with raising campaign money is that it creates the need for a bogeyman; it forces the candidates to attack their opponents in order to raise more money," says David Donnelly, campaign manager for Maine Voters for Clean Elections. "Public financing would force candidates to address issues and run a positive campaign."

The movement in Maine is especially encouraging because the state level is where reform will have to begin. "It can't come from Washington," Senator Bill Bradley (D.-N.J.), who is retiring this year to form a national grassroots movement for campaign-finance reform, told the Boston Globe, "because both parties are too implicated in the present system." Many states need campaign-finance reform even more than Congress. One third of the states have no contribution limits, like Illinois, where campaign spending nearly doubled from 1990 to 1994. In a recent poll in Maine, 65 percent favored public funding, and reform initiatives are underway in many other states.

As Catholics, it is our duty to inform our representatives that we support Campaign-finance reform and that we expect them to make it a legislative priority. "Campaign-finance reform is necessary to ensure broad based participation in our system," lobbyist Friedman says, "because that is what the integrity of Congress is based on."