Quite some drama is shaping up over the proposal being advanced by Gifford Miller’s cousin, Frederick A.O. Schwarz Jr., the chairman of New York City’s Campaign Finance Board. Mr. Schwartz wants to give more money to publicly funded candidates facing off against billionaires. He suggests the idea is worth considering on its merits. Mayor Bloomberg reckons the idea is a backroom deal to help the speaker. We’ve never held much regard for the idea of publicly funded campaigns, and this is a classic case.

Whatever Mr. Schwartz’s motives, Mr. Miller would profit handsomely from his cousin’s proposal to boost the city’s match of campaign contributions in such races to 8-1 from 4-1. In testimony on Thursday before the City Council, the deputy mayor for legal affairs, Carol Robles-Roman, went so far as to throw around phrases such as “appearance of improper influence or corruption” and “haste and willingness to strike a deal.”

But it doesn’t take Mr. Schwartz to raise the specter of a conflict of interest. For there is the question of Mr. Miller’s relationship with himself. It is plain on its face that Mr. Miller’s consideration of laws regarding how the 2005 mayoral election will be conducted could be unduly influenced by Mr. Miller’s regard for his own electoral success. Were Mr. Miller to press Mr. Schwartz’s scheme, he would, with a veto-proof Democratic majority behind him, be writing his own campaign a check for $10.9 million. For if the bill were to pass, his campaign would be eligible for up to $17.2 in public funds, up from the $6.3 million for which he is currently eligible.

When Mr. Bloomberg tried to ban party primaries, the newspapers — even the liberal broadsheet — protested that the mayor was using the charter process to help his own chances in the next election. The mayor, being a man of integrity, promptly offered that the law not take effect until he was out of office and that is how it went to the voters.

In any sense, it is virtually impossible to assess changes in the campaign finance system without an eye to the origins of the proposed changes — as Mr. Schwarz is calling for voters and their representatives to do. No one proposing or voting for these changes is unaffected by them. This illuminates the problem with all campaign finance legislation. First and foremost, it serves the interests of those who put the machinery in place: incumbents. New York historian Fred Siegel has called the system in New York “welfare for politicians.”

This kind of welfare is bad enough in Washington, D.C., where both parties try to protect themselves from upstart candidates. Incumbent protection is the main thrust of the McCain-Feingold law that has just been validated by the Supreme Court. But it is even worse in a one-party town such as New York where, in 2001, $40 million of public money went to Democrats versus $2 million to Republicans. Mr. Miller’s attempt to make off with the taxpayers’ money fails on the merits whatever the origins of the idea.