Some people would read the recent report on special-interest money and the state Legislature, published by this newspaper, as a good argument for sweeping campaign finance reform. We view it differently.

The story, authored by Lee Davidson and Bob Bernick Jr., showed that one-fifth of all Utah lawmakers received 100 percent of their funding from special interests, and not one dime from any average constituent. Many others received large percentages of their totals from the same groups. Viewed from a different perspective, $4 of every $5 raised by lawmakers in their last campaigns came from special interests.

Is it disturbing to know that average Utahns play such a small part in financing their representatives? Yes. Does this reveal a reason why many Utahns feel disconnected from their governments? Most certainly.

But it is naive to believe any campaign finance reform law, short of mandating total public funding for campaigns, could make things any different. The only credible way to guard the public's interests is to require everyone to fully and completely disclose all contributions and expenditures. Special-interest groups are not necessarily the enemies of the public. Neither are large campaign contributions from well-heeled contributors. Candidates tend to attract money from groups that support them ideologically.

No, the enemy is secrecy.

Bernick and Davidson provided a great public service. They listed the percentage of funding each lawmaker received from special interests, then they listed certain lawmakers who received the most from particular types of groups. For Utah voters, knowledge is power. This kind of knowledge helps them decide whether their representative is unduly influenced by a group that doesn't have the voters' interests in mind, or whether the voters should in fact be comfortable with the types of organizations providing contributions.

We are aware, of course, that these contributions help finance campaign ads that often distort a candidate's record or give him or her an unearned boost. But public accountability has to enter the equation somewhere.

The best solution would be a strict law that requires candidates and office holders to post financial disclosures regularly on the World Wide Web. And then voters would be accountable for checking those records before making their own decisions. As long as everything is open, no one can claim any hidden agendas.