In his recentHBO special, “Politics of Self-Destruction,” comedian Robin Williams had a terrific suggestion: Politicians shouldbe required by law to wear the logos of all the major contributorsto their campaigns–just like the sponsor decals displayed byNASCAR drivers–so that we know who is financing them.

Perhaps Gov. David Paterson could add that to his list ofcampaign finance reform ideas pitched to an auditorium of sour-pusslawmakers yesterday.

“The moneyed interests–many are here today as guests–have got tounderstand that their days of influence in this town are numbered,”Gov. Paterson boldly declared during his annual “State of theState” message.

Beyond pitching term limits for all lawmakers and statewideofficials, the governor called for a ban on corporate campaigncontributions, a cut in individual contribution limits from amaximum of $55,900 to $1,000, as well as a requirementthat lawmakers disclose all their outside sources ofincome.

These are all outstanding ideas (I am a proponent of publicfinancing of campaigns), but unfortunately, they will go nowhere inthe self-serving New York State Legislature.

Still, I'd love to see a New York lawmaker–or better yet, amember of the U.S. Congress–set an example by showing up for workin one of those distinctive NASCAR-style outfits, plastered withthe logos of corporate entities, associations and Political ActionCommittees that provide a big chunk of campaign funds.

Of course, all politicians insist such contributions do nothingto influence their voting behavior. They also argue that big-moneyfundraising is required to conduct the kind of ad warsnecessary to win most elections in this electronic age.

Fine, but at least wear the decal-covered outfits to show oneand all who is really paying their bills. Disclose, and let thevoters decide about the propriety of it all.

If politicians are truly shameless about who is paying theirway, they should not be averse to advertising who stands behindthem–so to speak.

Insurance industry interests might object. But keep in mind thatcontributions to legislators by trial lawyers looking to thwart androll-back tort reforms would also be part of the deal.

What do you folks think?