Candidates for office should rise to the top because they have sound ideas that attract campaign donations and attention. The public financing of campaigns does nothing to further that goal.

The proposed "Fair Elections Ordinance," a Salt Lake County measure that would introduce a form of public campaign financing, doesn't go as far as some that are in place elsewhere in the country. It would act as a dollar-for-dollar match to money a candidate already has collected from contributors. It would max out the public's donations at $24,000 per candidate, and it would apply only if the County Council candidate keeps his or her overall campaign spending to no more than $60,000 for a district seat or $120,000 for an at-large seat. It also would tighten contribution levels to $1,000 per individual and $5,000 from a candidate to his or her own campaign.

It would, in other words, be public financing light; a foot in the door toward what for some is a goal of a larger taxpayer roll in campaign spending.

It's also a deeply flawed proposal.

Supporters see it as a way to get secret deal-making and special-interest influence out of local politics. That's a noble goal, but this ordinance won't accomplish it. Well-heeled contributors can skirt donations limits without much thought. All they have to do is put a myriad of $1,000 contributions in the names of their family members, friends and associates. The candidate will get the message, just as he or she would if the money came in one lump sum from a donor.

And the absurdity of limiting a wealthy candidate's contributions to his or her own campaign is mind-boggling. Those people aren't likely to worry much about qualifying for public financing, and if they did, taxpayers would be left wondering why they had to fund a large portion of an independently wealthy person's campaign.

The biggest flaw in the ordinance is that it would empower incumbents and others who come into their races with a healthy dose of name recognition. Money buys speech, and it buys name-recognition, through broadcast advertising, billboards, leaflets, Web sites and other methods. Spending limits do little more than limit the ways an unknown candidate can attract attention. Rather than help average people get involved in the political process, the limits would make it harder for a novice to break through.

These types of ordinances always seem to presuppose that candidates would rather stay within spending limits than suffer the bad publicity that comes from exceeding them. But the reality is something quite different. Salt Lake City imposed voluntary spending limits. Mayor Rocky Anderson exceeded those in the last election without suffering any noticeable consequences.

Special-interest influence is indeed troublesome, but there is no artificial way to stop it in a free nation. The best solution is to require swift and complete financial disclosures that are immediately made available to all on the World Wide Web, with stiff penalties for non-compliance. Taxpayers should never have to fund private campaigns.