Just about everybody wants clean elections in the U.S., but today's self-styled "reformers" may be on the wrong track -- with a remedy worse than the disease. That is the opinion of political scholars who caution against some plans being considered today.

Money does not buy elections, says Major Garrett in a paper recently released by the Cato Institute. Garrett, a former Washington Times editor, has found that candidates with strong messages can defeat better-funded candidates.

• In his study, Garrett found that in six of 15 competitive Senate elections in 1996, the candidate who spent less money won.

• He also found that campaign spending has not been getting more expensive -- in fact, adjusted for inflation, campaign spending has been relatively stable since 1980.

Garrett blames the $1,000 per person limit dating back to the Watergate era for the common Congressional complaint that fund-raising takes time away from official duties.

He argues that abolishing limits on individual contributions and providing instant public disclosure would serve the goal of increasing information to voters -- allowing them to decide which candidates to support.

Unlike current reform schemes, this reform would also serve the purpose of protecting fundamental First Amendment rights.

He criticizes those senators who voted for a proposed Constitutional amendment which would have allowed Congress and state legislatures to regulate campaign spending, concluding that the proposed amendment would have damaged the right to free political speech -- the very basis of a democratic political system.

Source: Major Garrett, "Money, Politics and the First Amendment," Briefing Paper No. 30, June 19, 1997, Cato Institute, 1000 Massachusetts Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20001, (202) 842-0200.

For full text go to http://www.cato.org/pubs/briefs/bp-030.html