It's been awhile, and a lot of people have been asking me about the absence of this column over the summer. It's been a tough summer, beginning with my mother's death in June, a subsequent trip to New Mexico where I broke my arm, and a few other obligations and distractions.I'm not complaining, just explaining.

My last column, that I promised to continue, was a take on why people are so disillusioned with politics. I contended in that piece that a system that lets those in power draw district lines, enabling them to choose their own constituents, results in many safe, lightly contested and even uncontested legislative and congressional districts. This fosters excessive partisanship and diminishes incentive to address real needs of people. But our current system of redistricting is only a fraction of the reason for public disillusionment and disengagement.

This isn't rocket science. A more obvious reason for disillusionment and cynicism is the excessive role of money in politics. Of course money always had a role in politics and always will. But it has gotten totally out of hand. It takes a lot of money to get elected to high office. Those who contribute huge sums can influence elections and buy access, and thus have a disproportionate effect on laws of the land and the distribution of income.

The obvious influence of health insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies on national health care policy is one example. The increasingly unequal distribution of national income -- the rapid rise in the number of billionaires in the U.S. while incomes of average Americans have stagnated -- is another example of the influence of money in politics. Wall Street has flourished while Main Street has lagged. This trend will continue with the perpetual money chase demanded by long and costly political campaigns.

Speaking of which, there is no rational reason why presidential campaigns need begin well over a year prior to the next general election. Not only is it a horrendous waste of money, but also long campaigns distract sitting politicians from doing their real job. Furthermore, a constant drumbeat of campaigning breeds cynicism among the public and disillusionment with the system.

Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold are to be praised for their past efforts at campaign reform. But their worthy efforts fail to get at the root cause of the problem, namely incentives to raise mountains of cash. It is an economic truism that every dollar spent by someone is a dollar received by someone else. Therefore, a lot of vested interests love the existing system that has become corrupted by money.

Politicians chase money because of the high cost of campaigning -- namely expenses for media advertising. The television medium is a chief beneficiary, waxing fat on those disgusting 30-second negative ads that convey no useful information. So why, if nearly everyone agrees the system is corrupt and campaigns should be shorter and less costly, can't it be reformed?

The catch is that an issue doesn't become an issue of national debate until it makes the network and cable TV channels. And since the message on need for reform is filtered through the very network and cable outfits that profit so handsomely and have the most to lose through reform, the real issue will never be honestly aired, at least not on television.

The airwaves were once considered public property. Conformance with this principle would require making available complimentary airtime to candidates for public office, thus significantly diminishing the need to raise cash. Combine complimentary airtime with a ban on those short ads that cost mountains of cash but convey no useful information. Naturally, this would bring forth cries of bloody murder from the broadcast industry that has become addicted to the gusher of money from campaign spending. But it would significantly reduce the cost of campaigning and incentive for the money chase.

But it is not just the media. Other beneficiaries of long and costly campaigns include the gaggle of consultants, advisors, handlers and professional spinmeisters who ultimately receive these mountains of cash raised during political campaigns.

The vested interests in long and costly campaigns will insist that candidates need a long time to get their message across and give the public time to decide. This is sheer nonsense for several reasons. First, candidates simply repeat their bromides, slogans and shibboleths ad nausea, adding no information of consequence. Second, nearly everyone, including political junkies, tunes out the endless babble at this point anyway. And third, many voters insist that they don't make up their mind until walking into the voting booth. So if decisions aren't made until walking into the voting booth, what's the difference if the politicos are campaigning for six months or 16 months? Japan does very well with two months.

A sensible, more equitable system would mandate public financing of campaigns along the lines proposed by Rep. Steve Hilgenberg for state Supreme Court justices. The rap usually leveled against this method is that some people don't want their taxes going to finance political campaigns. The alternative, however, is that the moneyed interests hold sway -- hardly in the interests of the majority of working people and Middle America.

Thanks in part to the media that profit from the existing corrupt system; campaign finance reform is not up for national debate. It is the media, particularly the television medium, handlers, advisors, consultants, and professional spinmeisters who love and profit from the existing system, and will perpetuate it. Therefore, reform will not happen unless and until there is a long and protracted public outcry over corruption of the existing system.

Are we there yet?

-- John J. Waelti is a native of Monroe township; former professor of applied economics, University of Minnesota; and professor emeritus, New Mexico State University. He can be reached at jjwaelti@tds.net.