Beware those eloquent defenses of the status quo when it comes to the financing of political campaigns in North Carolina. Oh, you'll hear some stem-winders about how the system isn't that bad, offers people a choice, and...fifes and drums here please...how it would go against the very foundations of democracy to deprive people of the free speech of maxing out when crossing the candidates' palms with silver.

Free speech? There's nothing free about it. Donors can give, and many do, $4,000 per election cycle. And in the just-completed primary campaign, many people give $1,000 or more to candidates for governor and lieutenant governor.

According to the latest reports, Lt. Gov. Beverly Perdue collected 72 percent of her contributions ($7.56 million total) from those giving at least that much as she won the Democratic nomination for governor. Her top opponent, state Treasurer Richard Moore, got 81 percent of his contributions ($6.63 million) from $1,000 and up contributors. Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory, the winning Republican, got 84 percent ($1.17 total) from the $1,000 club.

Think about that for a second. Perhaps a contributor doesn't have to be rich to give $1,000 or more, but for most people in North Carolina, that kind of money is big money. Maybe not to the "players" in politics, but to the vast majority of the people they're running to serve, it's a bundle.

No strings attached? Get real. Big givers have an edge in gaining access to those they support. They're often appointed to this or that. And if they're not bending the ears of top elected officials, they certainly stand a better chance than Joe Taxpayer of getting some special attention from a staff member.

And now, what with the public paying attention to who gives how much to whom, and with records open and more complete than they used to be, candidates sometimes find themselves having to return money from contributors for different reasons. For example, Moore returned a contribution from A. Stephen Pierce, who in 1999 pleaded guilty to illegally funneling campaign contributions to state officials, including to Perdue. Moore's campaign then attacked Perdue over the contributions from Pierce, even though she had returned them.

Mercy. What a tangled web develops when campaign contributions are the thread that weaves everything together.

One more time, let it be said: A possible cure for this malady is public financing of political campaigns. The public as financier will be able to hold the candidates to account for their promises without looking to contributors' lists for explanations as to why a certain person was appointed, why a certain policy was adopted. For the candidates, it relieves them of the burden of begging for cash, literally for years, if they intend to run for statewide office.

This doesn't deprive anyone of their vote, or of free speech. In fact, it puts the "free" back in speech, and gives the public voice as much clout as the guy with thousands of dollars in spare change to throw at candidates so he can be a commissioner of this or a board member of that or a member of the Order of the Plott Hound.

The state is experimenting with public financing in some elections, and that's good. Let the "experiment" expand -- the sooner, the better.