Today I write of “pay for play,” a custom under which people who want special treatment for their personal or business needs make political contributions, usually to incumbents. Under the city’s campaign finance program, these contributions are matched on a 6-to-1 basis by public funds, bumped up from 4-to-1 in a bill that the City Council passed this year.

Speaker Miller originally proposed an 8-1 ratio, which he really would have preferred, but even excess has its limits. One problem in expressing outrage is that when you simply describe a factual situation in ordinary language, it may not leap out and grab you by the throat. To me it is a perversion of equity and fairness to be required to pay taxes in order to multiply, by ever increasing amounts (the ratio in 1988, when this began, was 1-to-1), the city’s political subsidies.

In addition, most subsidies in council races go to incumbents who have no real competition because their districts have been gerrymandered to their benefit. The subsidy they receive is spent on hiring campaign staff and publishing self-serving literature that has little effect on the outcome of elections. Their hapless rivals may be running simply to publicize their names and promote their businesses.

A proposal by the impartial Campaign Finance Board to limit the practice of rewards for runaway elections was rejected last year by the City Council under the leadership of Speaker Miller, who was unwilling to turn off the spigot of public funds. The citizens of New York are now by law compelled to pay a 400% to 600% tax on political contributions made by others up to $250 per donor. Gifts from the donor’s spouse or other friends and relatives are also matched, unless you can prove it was the donor’s money.

While some gifts are legitimate, others are not. Some are expressions of respect and friendship, while others are thinly disguised legal bribes.

It is difficult to conceive of a more egregious misuse of public funds than the fleecing that goes on under this program, but no one should be surprised by the self-serving actions of the pampered part-timers who comprise our City Council. Yes, there are honest, decent and hard working council members, but they keep their mouths shut about the way the place is run. It is wiser for them to be silent.

We know that running for public office in a competitive election is expensive; if one is not personally wealthy, they must rely on contributions. Like Blanche DuBois, candidates “have always depended on the kindness of strangers.”

Natural donors to candidates include relatives, friends, neighbors, colleagues, and people who are impressed with an aspirant’s ideology, knowledge, appearance, speaking ability, sexual attraction, or personal charm. Other donors are friends of friends; they don’t know the candidate directly, but someone they know is holding a coffee-klatsch or other fund-raising event. Potential donors may be impressed by newspaper articles, television appearances, or public meetings where a contender may have spoken. They may have read, and liked, his literature or his commercials.

An incumbent can in good faith solicit and receive funds from people who feel that this person has done a good job on the council. Some voters may have received help with housing or other problems from the legislator’s district office, and want to express their appreciation.

Other donors’ motives are less laudable. There are people who are recipients of substantial public funds, either to their businesses, nonprofits or cultural institutions, who want to make sure the legislator keeps the tap flowing. The council member may have secured these funds either by general appropriation or through pots of money allocated to his district, sometimes as a reward for his loyalty to the council’s leadership.

Campaign contributions are a tangible way for those who have been personally or institutionally enriched by a legislator’s actions to demonstrate their appreciation for the largesse bestowed upon them, and to enhance their opportunity to be treated with similar benevolence in subsequent terms.

A donor who gives part of his salary to his employer’s campaign may or may not be a happy camper. It is possible that the money was demanded from the employee. In some cases salaries are set at a rate sufficiently generous that portions of the compensation they receive can be recycled into the employer’s campaign. The practice is frowned upon by some public officials, but accepted by others, including Kings County District Attorney Charles (Joe) Hynes, who regularly receives contributions from lawyers in his office.

The employees with the highest salaries are often the most generous donors. Mr. Hynes is by no means alone in his viewpoint on this; but while the practice is perfectly legal, it may leave the employee feeling uncomfortable. Another assemblage of doubtful donors are individuals or contractors who seek favorable decisions on land use from city council members or borough presidents. Under the City Charter, the council and the borough presidents have a role in planning and zoning changes.

The council may veto a proposal that has been approved by the City Planning Commission. In 2001, a council member, Angel Rodriguez, tried to get the council to block a development in Red Hook, Brooklyn. He was overruled by the full council, which was led by Speaker Vallone and later by Speaker Miller.

Rodriguez had been the candidate of the Brooklyn delegation for speaker. Fortunately, Mr. Miller won, otherwise the city would have had to endure the spectacle of an important public official – he would have been the first member of his ethnic group to serve in that high office – being publicly disgraced.

Afterward, Rodriguez was tried and convicted for receiving bribes from an undercover agent who was wired by the U.S. attorney’s office, which has prosecuted a number of official corruption cases in Kings County. His felony conviction automatically terminated his council membership. He was later sentenced to 52 months in federal prison.

Most gifts are from supporters of projects rather than from opponents, and most council members do not vote in favor or against land-use proposals on the basis of contributions. The campaign gifts they receive are more like tips or expressions of appreciation for cooperation. Those gifts should not be illegal, but why do the rest of us have to match them 4-to-1, much less 6-1?

Staff at anti-poverty organizations and cultural institutions are among the donor lists. Council members have varying degrees of influence on the contracts these groups receive. Some of these gifts are like insurance premiums: no specific action is sought, but if an issue subsequently arises, the council member will remember that the donor and his organization had been helpful.

Sometimes the issue is a matter of attitude: will an elected official be friendly to business, organized labor, or any other interest the donor represents? A specific action may or may not be sought at gifting time.

The enormous influence of public employee unions transcends financial contributions. Unions can provide campaign workers and phone banks to assist candidates, and many do so routinely. These gifts in kind are very difficult to regulate, and often have substantial value. Council members rarely cross unions, whatever the issue may be. Reciprocity may or may not be specifically demanded. But we all know that, in future campaigns, the same players will be around, and they can contribute to the incumbent or to his challenger, depending on whether they are pleased with this performance with regard to their interests. Public funding of political campaigns is meritorious in principle. But unless the board wins the power to change the rules of the game and weed out the grifters, the program will continue to be, in critical areas, a boondoggle.

Mr. Stern is a former New York City parks commissioner and the director of New York Civic.