Time was when the Reform Party would have railed against just this sort of attempt to entrench the political cartel in Ottawa. The bill is aimed, says Mr. McClelland, at freak shows such as the Natural Law Party, which won only 84,000 votes in the last election but collected $717,000 in subsidy (on expenses of $3.4-million, courtesy of the deep pockets and addled brains of its patrons).

But it would also catch within its net such legitimate voices of dissent as the Green Party, the Libertarian Party and the Family Coalition Party. Indeed, it wasn't so long ago that Mr. McClelland's definition of political legitimacy would very nearly have excluded the Reform Party, which by a remarkable coincidence won just over 2 per cent of the vote - 2.08 per cent, to be precise - in 1988. How convenient.

The real question is not, as Mr. McClelland would have it, why "the taxpapers should be subsidizing what really is not a political party," but why they should be subsidizing the political parties themselves. Not only can the parties claim partial reimbursement for their expenses, but contributors receive a 75-per-cent tax credit. The same campaign dollar, in other words, is matched by the taxpayer twice: once coming in, and once going out. Whenever a party buys a campaign ad and a corporate patron buys a ticket to a $500-a-plate dinner, they're not just spending their money, they're spending yours - in hopes of spending still more of it once in office.

The usual rationale for the parties helping themselves to public money in this way is the supposed need to "support the process." Without public subsidy, it is suggested, smaller parties would have little chance against their larger and richer rivals. But the biggest beneficiaries of this help are the parties that need it least: the ones that, respectively, spend the most and raise the most. And if putting smaller parties on a level playing field is the point, why sideline the littlest ones of all?

Having secured themselves a steady source of funds, the parties then arranged things to ensure that it was spent in the unfairest way conceivable. While there is no limit, under federal election laws, on the amount that an individual or corporation may contribute to a political party, there are strict limits on how much that party can spend. A one- horse cart like the National Party, say, on the basis of a single contribution of $4-million, may spend as much as a party with four million contributors each kicking in a dollar.

This notion of electoral fairness has it back to front. It isn't the parties we should want to level the playing field for, but the individual voter. The Prime Minister memorably dismissed complaints about his attendance at a swanky fund raiser during the last campaign with an insouciant, "Millionaires vote." But millionaires are supposed to vote just once, like any other citizen. In the other campaign, however, they get a lot more ballots than the rest of us.

If an election is the occasion for a national debate, surely each citizen should get to speak at about the same decibel level. Obviously, we can't all speak at once; that's why we combine our voices, through political parties and advocacy groups. The aim of campaign finance reform should be simply to ensure that each party or group speaks in proportion to its actual base of support in the country, without artificial amplification - public or private. That suggests the limits should apply to contributions, not spending. It suggests, too, that only individuals should be allowed to contribute, and only their own dollars - not those of their shareholders, union members or other taxpayers.

How to ensure this? Set an annual ceiling on the total of each individual's political contributions. Direct that any such donations be collected through the income-tax system - though they would not be deductible - and then distributed to their intended beneficiaries. Limit the parties to this source of funds only, and require that campaign expenses not exceed the total of such contributions. That should be the model for reform. Or, indeed, Reform.