American democracy is imperfect. Among its flaws is the intrusion of monied interests — through campaign fundraising and spending — in the outcome of elections and in governance.

Limiting the influence of donors through campaign-finance reform has proven maddeningly difficult. There are still too many different ways to channel money to candidates; witness the sophisticated machine that raised a record $600 million for the Obama campaign.

The best way to bar private influence over public governance, both locally and nationally, is to make elections fully publicly funded.

It's a priority that will surely rank low in the face of today's severe budget crises. But it should remain the ultimate goal. In the meantime, meager improvement through patchwork reforms will have to do.

The issue came up again last week in a debate at the Campaign Spending Commission over a law passed in 2005. The panel considered recommending repeal of that measure, which limits non-resident contributions to no more than 20 percent of total donations to candidates during each reporting period.

Barbara Wong, the commission's executive director, said the law may unconstitutionally restrict political expression. It's a concern she expressed after taking office, just before the law took effect in 2006.

The law was passed by Democratic lawmakers in response to Gov. Linda Lingle's success in out-of-state fundraising among groups that wanted to see a Republican governor in an overwhelmingly Democratic state.

The law, a small step forward in reducing outside influences, clearly targeted Lingle and so was tainted by cynical political motivations.

Of course, repealing the restrictions could carry a similar taint, as it could give well-connected incumbents a decided advantage in raising outside money.

The commission ultimately decided not to recommend repealing it, but rather to amend it to give campaigns more time to track the donations and stay within limits.

Holding off on a change was a sensible move; ultimately the constitutional question may have to be settled by the courts.

But the restriction on out-of-state funds does not go far enough to make campaigning more accessible to the larger public and elections more accountable to the voter.

Only a wholesale restructuring of the system, enabling candidates to run a successful campaign with only public funds, can achieve the core goal: opening elective office to far more than those with huge campaign warchests.

Such an approach has worked in other jurisdictions and in 2010 will be piloted in the Big Island County Council election. It would be financed with the Hawai'i Election Campaign Fund, which is replenished through a voluntary checkoff on state income tax forms.

Many questions — including how to enlarge the fund enough to cover more campaigns — are still unanswered.

And, clearly, expanding the movement on a national scale requires more tests at the state level and is years away.

But that remains the path most likely to lead to "clean" elections. While considering other intermediary reforms is laudable, Hawai'i lawmakers should stay committed to that goal.