A coalition of aldermen and civic groups is presenting a plan today to bring public financing of campaigns for mayor and aldermen to Chicago.

The proposed ordinance almost certainly faces a steep road to passage, even if it's based on similar laws in New York City and Los Angeles. Mayor Rahm Emanuel won't like it, something that right now could be a plus.

But the measure has some absolutely delightful aspects to it. That includes limits on who can give how much and requirements that participating candidates agree to debates and promise not to spend the money on things like haircuts and car purchases.

"This is a way of ensuring that it's constituents in our wards who are represented and not campaign donors," said Ald. Joe Moore, 49th, who's sponsoring the measure along with Michelle Harris, 8th, and John Arena, 45th. Among groups pushing the proposal is Common Cause Illinois, whose national parent is a longtime advocate of public financing for national races.

Under the proposal, the city would set up a fund equal to 0.1 percent of the annual city budget, some of which would come from voluntary checkoffs on utility bills or a tax on lobbyists.

The money would be offered to candidates for their races: up to $3.6 million for a candidate for mayor; up to $180,000 for candidates for city treasurer and clerk; and $150,000 for City Council seats.

To qualify—candidates could chose not to participate and raise money the traditional way—those running for office first would have to raise a certain amount on their own, at least $200,000 for mayor and $17,500 for alderman, in small increments of no more than $175 per contribution. Those donations would be matched on a 6-to-1 ratio, up to the maximums listed above.

Participants also would have to agree to accept no donation of more than $500 ($250 from city contractors) and to spend the public money for legitimate campaign purposes. "Clothing, haircut and other personal grooming" are specifically excluded, as is challenging a would-be foe's nominating petitions. Also banned for participants would be accepting donations from political-party committees, as well as from political action committees, better known as PACs.

And debates? Every mayoral or aldermanic wannabe would have to agree to at least two—assuming there's a contested election, that is. And participating candidates would not be allowed to stockpile huge war chests years in advance as Emanuel did, but raise money only in the months leading up to an election.

I can think of lots of potential objections, starting with the fact that the national public funding system is a bust, with President Barack Obama having famously walked away from it after he decided he could raise more on his own without caps. Or the reality that such a system might make it harder to unseat some long-term incumbents.

But the idea of taking some of the flood of special-interest cash out of Chicago politics certainly is appealing—especially if the system is strictly voluntary for the candidates.

"We're going to have to do a lot of educating," Moore said. "But this is very appealing to people.”

We'll see how it fares. Anyone who thinks Chicago's election system is perfect is living somewhere else.