Legislators this week were shamed into backing away from a bill that had invited corporate padding of campaign coffers, which ought to please anyone who's been watching the debate in disbelief.

Now lawmakers have a chance to redeem themselves by untangling state campaign spending laws, ensuring that the political system is supported primarily by the public rather than special interests.

House Bill 539, the measure that would have removed a cap on corporate campaign contributions, was sent back to the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday.

That's where the measure, which would have expanded corporate influence, should die. And a companion measure, Senate Bill 181, also should be shelved by the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee, which has not heard the bill but has until March 6 to decide its fate.

HB 539 started out as an attempt to raise the $1,000 cap on what a company can give from its treasury to its political action committee (PAC), an entity that can be formed to disburse campaign donations to various candidates.

The bill at first raised the limit to $25,000 and then was amended to eliminate the cap altogether. This means that companies, as well as wealthy individuals, could pump unlimited amounts of money through their PACs, spread among candidates.

Each candidate could only receive an amount limited by law from each individual or PAC — $2,000, $4,000 or $6,000, depending on the office. But critics said the bill did not limit the number of PACs a company could fund, extending corporate dollars further into elections.

A curb on corporate money in elections helps to reduce the unfair advantage that well-monied interests have in politics. Instead of opening the floodgates, as Isle lawmakers seem tempted to do, they should adopt the century-old ban on contributions directly from corporate treasuries into federal campaign funds.

The disastrous bill now sidelined, a second measure, House Bill 215, will be debated at 4 p.m. today by the House Finance Committee. It attempts to clean up a lot of the confusion in the body of campaign finance law. That challenging task was taken on last year by the Campaign Spending Commission's Blue Ribbon Recodification Committee.

The bulk of this hefty bill is aimed at simple clarity: rounding up into one chapter all the relevant rules about campaign governance and spending. That's an important end in itself, making it easier for the public to understand the impact of changes to the law.

But the House committee must not put the language eliminating the contributions cap back onto this bill. Voters should hold lawmakers accountable for any attempted end run of this kind.

In its testimony, the commission also draws from two other measures that have not been heard, House Bills 216 and 217, for proposed additions to HB 215. Among the better provisions that should be included are these:

• Language should be restored to allow prosecuting attorney candidates to qualify for money from the public campaign fund.

• Amounts available to candidates who apply for public funds should be increased.

• PACs should be required to file a report by July 31 on election years, the same deadline as candidates, to improve transparency to the public on all contributions made.

The bottom line of any change to the campaign financing law should be to make elections more accessible and understandable by the public. If it keeps corporate financial influence at bay, HB 215 seems poised to do that.