It's painfully ironic that two proposals that seek divergent goals would end up incorporated into the same piece of legislation.

One is a bill to launch an experiment in public "clean elections" financing, an effort to curb the influence of large donors over elected officials. House Bill 661 would enable the Big Island County Council elections to offer candidates an alternative, public source of campaign funds.

The other seeks to clarify the state campaign-finance law by laying down limits for corporate donors in time for this year's election cycle.

A floor amendment in the Senate last week inserted the latter proposal into HB 661, and because the House continues to object to the corporate donor language, the measure now heads for a Senate-House conference committee for a final decision.

Regardless of how anyone feels about corporate campaign donation laws — a confusing issue in its own right, and the subject of litigation — mingling the two matters in a single piece of legislation was a move that needlessly clouded the prospects for the long-awaited public-financing pilot program.

HB 661, which has support from both houses — and, most importantly, from the Big Island council — becomes a bargaining chip in deciding the fate of the controversial corporate donations proposal, intentionally or otherwise.

Senate leaders insist they did so because of legislative technicalities: The change was inserted into HB 661 because the subject matter was related, as required by law.

Related, perhaps, the way feuding sides of a family are related.

Worst of all: These are both critical issues that are being hammered out behind closed doors, which simply reinforces the popular misgivings about open government.

House conferees should stick by their guns and see that the amendment is excised from HB 661.

The question of how much corporations can give candidates through political action committees must be settled in the courts. Until then, campaign contributions from corporations can still be given to individual candidates this election year.

Better that the law sits in limbo for the session than it hinge on making the process inaccessible to the public. More transparency in government — not less — is the goal.