Senators should be barred from seeking private campaign funding, and instead be made to share a publicly-controlled electoral fund, Senator Bill Bradley (D-N.J.) said at the Institute of Politics last night.

In a speech titled "Freeing Democracy from the Power of Money," Bradley, who has announced that he will not seek a fourth term, called for campaign finance reform to prevent corruption in politics.

Money in politics is like ants in the kitchen, you have to close all the holes, or some of them will find a way in," Bradley said.

Citing wide-spread perception of government corruption. Bradley called for radical reform because of increased voter distrust. "There are several reasons for this phenomenon, but one of them is money," he explained.

Bradley said citizens have reason to mistrust government when exceptions are made for companies with deep pockets and big campaign contributions.

In addition, he faulted "new members of the Congressional majority, [who] while billing themselves as reformers, collect on average more than $60,000 from Washington-based political action committees in just the first six months in office."

Bradley called for a constitutional amendment allowing states and the U.S. Congress "explicit authority to limit spending in campaigns and contributions from any sources."

The 1976 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Buckley v. Valco, which likened campaign spending to free speech, Bradley maintained that "a rich man's wallet is no different than a poor man's soapbox."

Next, the senator proposed that campaigns be financed by a pool of shared tax-payer contributions of between $1 to $5,000 per year, contributions which could then be checked off on tax returns. The shared funds would be divided equally among qualified candidates, whatever their party affiliation.

"Outside of the money from the common fund, Senate candidates could not spend any money from PACs, individual donors, the party or their own pocketbooks to further their candidacy," Bradley said.

Bradley said he would also "reclaim of the public airwaves," saying his bill would require every broadcaster to provide two hours of free time in units of at least one minute.

Any party which had received 10 percent of the vote in previous elections would qualify to receive funds. New parties would be eligible after receiving five percent of the signatures in the state.

"A candidate who refused to participate in at least one debate would be completely shut out--he could not participate in the shared fund or raise money separately," Bradley added.

During primaries, candidates would be allowed to raise funds privately. "But they would be required to raise 100 percent of those funds in contributions of $100 or less," Bradley said.

Summing up his proposal, Bradley said, "All the sources of corruption in the current system would be cut off. Speech would be protected; money would be restricted."

In follow-up questions some audience members questioned the feasibility of Bradley's proposal, asking how campaigns would be funded if taxpayers did not contribute and whether curtailing spending by the wealthy is in fact curtailing their speech.

"For us to think that someone spending millions of dollars of their own money to promote themselves is not a threat to the ability of the rest of us to have our own voices heard shows us how far self-interest has come in American politics." Bradley responded.

When asked how he might enact his proposal. Bradley said he hopes to spur on-going grassroots reform by creating a "narrative" by which to discuss today's political issues.

Ballot initiatives for 1996 are currently planned in Maine, California, Alaska, Arkansas and Colorado, Bradley said.

After leaving the Senate next year, Bradley said he will devote some of his time to seeing that his bill becomes reality.

"You will not get fundamental campaign reform on the inside," he said. "You have to build it from the outside.