It's welcome news that the state Campaign Spending Commission has turned fresh attention to an old and rather cynical practice by which politicians use campaign cash to buy good will in their communities.

It has long been a tradition in local politics for candidates, usually incumbents who have the most excess cash, to give money to sports teams, community groups and others in their districts. At one level this is a benign practice that helps support activities that are always struggling for money.

At another level it is a distortion of the campaign financing system. People contribute to candidates with the assumption, presumably, that the money will be used directly to advance that person's election. Now, it could be argued that supporting a local soccer club may indeed translate into helping a candidate get elected.

But that's not what the contribution was designed for. In fact, it may be that the contributor likes the candidate but does not support the particular community activity to which his contribution was diverted.

Unlike the freewheeling days of yesterday, today's law limits so-called community contributions to no more than one person can contribute to a candidate. That is, if the limit on individual contributions to a state house candidate is $2,000 per election cycle, then that candidate cannot give community, youth or charitable groups more than $2,000.

The commission's current focus is on candidates who have violated this law by giving more than the allotted limit to any one group. The first to get snagged was Manoa Sen. Brian Taniguchi, whose campaign exceeded its limits with a contribution to his alma mater, Roosevelt High School, for athletic facilities.

Clearly, the excess contribution was inadvertent and the cause was worthy. But the commission was correct not to let this pass. This system of collecting donations (which almost always benefits incumbents) then passing the money on to grateful community groups creates an unfair advantage to a well-heeled candidate.

Now that the commission has put the spotlight on the practice, even its newly regulated form, it should take the next step and push hard for a law that would prohibit such "outside" contributions altogether. If candidates believe in a community function, let them support it out of their own pockets.