One step forward, two steps back. It appears Hawai'i may have celebrated too soon last year when Act 244, the public-funding pilot program for the Big Island County Council races, became law.

This year the Legislature seems to be dancing more closely with the notion of keeping private money wedded to politics in this state.

First there were attempts to raise or eliminate the caps on campaign contributions from corporate treasuries. That move appears to be on ice, with House Bill 215 failing to pass to the Senate.

But the House did pass HB 345, seeking to delay the start of the pilot program from 2010 to the 2014 election cycle.

Opponents voiced concerns about the funding allotted not being enough to cover the candidates who might step forward. That seems unlikely, considering that the requirements candidates need to qualify, such as gathering names and small private donations themselves, would fend off unanticipated crowds.

Others raised a legal concern over the law's "equalizing fund" provision. This is what makes a publicly funded candidate viable. If a privately funded opponent spends more, a candidate using the public fund would have access to a limited amount from the equalizing fund.

A federal lawsuit in Arizona challenged a similar provision in that state's law, and the court found it unconstitutional. However, a later case in North Carolina upheld the constitutionality of an equalizing fund, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case on appeal.

The lower-court ruling in Arizona is not binding on other states, and the high court's decision to review the North Carolina case ought to encourage Hawai'i to proceed with its own experiment in "voter-owned elections."

Many advocates for the bill argued, rightly, that the movement toward public funding of campaigns is fueled by frustration at the skyrocketing costs of elections that have made politics and governance the province of the well-moneyed. It has given greater influence over government to wealthy interest groups and less to ordinary citizens. This enables corruption and discourages voting and public engagement.

Overhauling the way voters access the political process is going to take time and revisions to get it right. That's why this reform was enacted as a pilot.

There is no compelling reason to delay this project. Of the reasons to proceed, the most compelling is this one: The Big Island voters want reform, a larger share of democracy. Let's get on with it.