Poor Ross Perot. Just when he thought he had mainstreamed his campaign by accepting federal funding, the Commission on Presidential Debates shut him out of this year's political faceoffs. The decision came earlier this week, as the bipartisan committee declared that Perot did not have a "realistic" chance of being elected president. Clinton staffers reacted with dismay even as the Dole campaign was quite pleased. Both major parties assumed that a Perot appearance would have focused much more criticism on the Republican nominee than on the president.

One can hardly blame the comission, given the criteria they were using. Perot's star has fallen significantly since 1992 and the general frustration and anger of the electorate has quieted in the last four years. Without the ability to dig deep into his personal coffers, Perot can hardly spend his way out of his deficit in the polls. But I can't help but be disturbed by the notion that a man who is on the ballot in almost all 50 states, has a national organization and has political positions on most of the major issues of the day isn't entitled to a national audience. How are new candidates ever going to break the two-party mold if they can't ascend a presidential podium?

Our democracy is (or at least should be) based on the principle that a free exchange of ideas will ultimately assure that the people make informed and wise decisions. But that free exchange is only possible in a political system that doesn't handicap challengers excessively. What is becoming clearer with each election (as Ross Perot has pointed out) is that the current election system allows money to dominate democracy.

Think about it. How can even the most established and well-respected individual raise the necessary funds to run a campaign in today's medialaden elections? And even some who have the funds (like Ross Perot) have been refused by the networks when they have tried to buy 30-minute time slots to air their views.

This is not to say that anyone with a campaign logo and a home-cooked platform should be entitled to a national audience as a presidential candidates. Indeed, the two major parties do ensure that the public is choosing from candidates with a broad base of support and with views on all the big national questions. It is to say, however, that someone from outside the two major parties who can achieve these credentials should be allowed to stand before the American people as well.

Americans have grown frustrated with the countless advantages given to incumbents, and some have gone down the foolish path of supporting another anti-democratic measure: term limits. But what is really needed is an overhaul of the entire system of how we elect people, not just how often we elect them. Campaign finance reform is desperately needed.

Unfortunately, we must rely on one of the two major parties to give it to us, though neither is equal to the task. For all intents and purposes, the Democrats and the Republicans are both incumbent parties, and the prospect that either will cede some of their own power is dim. Nonetheless, it is the only way. In this election year, members of both parties, or at least those that care about a vital democracy, must call on their candidates to take this important step quickly.

Reform is needed not because it will restore substance to the political campaign. (Andrew Jackson was elected because he was a national hero, not because of any his bold ideas for policy initiatives.) We need it because it will ensure that all Americans can become involved in the political process not just those that have straightjacketed themselves into the establishment. Perot's exclusion is no tragedy. Most people think he has no chance, and he would have turned an important discussion into a three-ring circus. The principle of his exclusion, however, is alarming, and no self-respecting democrat should forget that.

Ethan M. Tucker's column appears on alternate Thursdays.