The presidential public financing system that restored the country's faith in our presidential elections in the dark days after the Watergate scandal is in jeopardy. The system has served the public well for more than 30 years by reducing the influence of special interests and producing more competitive presidential elections.

Yet, much has changed in the three decades since the law was enacted in 1974, and Congress has failed to adjust the system to keep pace with recent presidential campaigns. Without changes to the presidential public financing system, the presidency will become even more susceptible to special-interest influence than it has in recent years.

The public financing system has been used for the general election by every presidential candidate of both parties since Jimmy Carter. From 1976 to 2000, the system produced competitive elections in which Republicans were elected four times and Democrats three times. Challengers won three out of the six elections where an incumbent president was a candidate. Compared to the over 90 percent re-election rate in recent Senate races and over 98 percent in the House, it is easy to see how a strong public financing system improves the health and integrity of our democracy.

The corruption and influence-peddling scandals in Congress have exposed the dangers of a private financing system that often leaves public officials indebted to wealthy donors and corporate interests. Congressional leaders and the White House will remain unable to address rising energy and prescription drug prices if their campaigns continue to be heavily financed by the oil and pharmaceutical industries, for example.

The 2008 presidential election could be the first billion-dollar election in history for the major party nominees, with the most dominant role being played by big-money fundraisers. In 2004, John Kerry and George W. Bush, who both opted out of the system during the primaries, spent a combined $655 million during the entire election cycle. This stands in stark contrast to the $192 million spent by both major party nominees in 1992. Clearly, the cost of running for president has risen far beyond the public financing system's current spending limits.

Furthermore, the primary calendar has become so front-loaded that candidates have begun resorting to private financing to keep pace with the frenzied schedule. Under the current system, public funds for primary elections are only made available on Jan. 1 of the election year, just a month before the first caucuses and primaries are held. In reality, modern campaigns begin in earnest well before the actual election year. By September 2003, for example, months before he would have been eligible to receive public funds, Democratic presidential hopeful Howard Dean had already made 44 campaign trips to New Hampshire and 42 to Iowa.

There is a solution. The bipartisan Presidential Funding Act of 2006, recently introduced in both houses of Congress, would fix the presidential financing system by providing incentives to allow presidential candidates to accept public financing and still remain competitive.

The act would increase the spending limits for the presidential primary and general election to an overall total of $250 million for each candidate. The act would also provide additional public funds and higher spending limits to a candidate participating in the system if they face a non-participating opponent who greatly outspends them. Public funds for the primaries would also become available to the candidates starting on July 1 of the year before the election.

The presidential public financing system has broken down in recent years as candidates have increasingly chosen to abandon public funds in favor of amassing huge sums of money from wealthy donors and moneyed special interests. The system can and must be fixed to ensure that the White House does not end up back on the auction block, bought and paid for by the highest bidders.

Bill Bradley is a former Democratic U.S. senator from New Jersey and was a Democratic presidential candidate in 2000. Marty Meehan, a Democratic member of Congress from Massachusetts, is the sponsor of the Presidential Funding Act of 2006 and was one of the authors of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.