There's not much to take seriously in Donald Trump's oh-so-strange presidential campaign, but he made an important comment during the first Republican presidential debate about the pathetic state of campaign finance laws.

"I will tell you that our system is broken," he said during the debate. "I give to many people. I give to everybody, when they call I give, and you know what? When I need something from them, two years, three years later, I call, they are there for me."

Since that first debate in Cleveland on Aug. 6, Trump - a self-funded billionaire who boasts of his refusal to accept any money from super PACs - has said he "loves the idea of campaign finance reform" and has said of the current system, "It's a shame. It's a disgrace."

It's hard to tell just what about Trump appeals to voters who have rallied to him, but his ability to stand above the sewer of special interest money is certainly one of his more legitimate attractions as a candidate.

Americans tell pollsters in overwhelming numbers that they think the big-money campaign finance system needs to be fixed. Trump doesn't have any specific proposals in mind (surprise!) but last week, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton proposed some solid and specific reforms.

But not for this time around. She won't unilaterally disarm. Campaign 2016 will shatter all previous records for spending on presidential, congressional, gubernatorial and legislative races.

Republicans have exploited new tactics allowing unlimited independent expenditures far more aggressively than Democrats. So last week the Democrats decided they'd get aggressive, too.

A prominent Democratic law firm asked the Federal Election Commission to clarify rules governing independent committees like super PACs that can raise unlimited funds as long as they don't coordinate with candidate committees. Democrats want to know just how independent of the candidate does an independent expenditure committee have to be?

The GOP is interpreting the laws broadly. If the FEC says that's legal, then the Democrats will follow suit. If the FEC says no, it could cripple existing GOP efforts. If the FEC can't decide — and it's probably the most feckless agency in all of government — then the Democrats will probably wage unlimited warfare, too.

This sets up an odd dynamic: Democrats, whose leading presidential candidate is proposing campaign finance reforms, are at the same time serving notice that it's about to exploit existing laws hammer-and-tongs.

But if there is a Hillary Clinton presidency, we could see a push for reform. "Our democracy should be about expanding the franchise, not charging an entrance fee," Clinton said when she introduced a set of proposals that would require more disclosure of political spending, establish a federal matching system for small donations to congressional and presidential candidates and require publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to shareholders.

Clinton reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling that enabled the flood of spending.

The proposal won its share of praise from groups interested in curbing the corrosive influence of money in politics. And it won a measure of criticism, especially from big money groups.

"Hillary Clinton stopped making calls to her own super PAC donors long enough to call for an end to super PACs," said Jeff Bechdel, a spokesman for America Rising, a conservative super PAC.

Perhaps Clinton's renewed emphasis on campaign reform is simply a response to Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders' frank and accurate assessment of the current system as "corrupt." If so, it demonstrates the value of a good primary battle in bringing important issues to the forefront.

The entry of Harvard professor Larry Lessig into the campaign as a "referendum president" also demonstrates growing citizen interest in campaign finance reform and other good-government initiatives.

Lessig is the ultimate single-issue candidate: If he wins, he says, he will serve only as long as it takes to pass the Citizens Equality Act of 2017. This legislation would reform campaign finance, voting rights and congressional redistricting.

All good ideas, but he's not going to win. Not enough money.

Still, we can hope that his campaign, Clinton's proposals and even Trump's vague comments will prompt other presidential candidates to address the growing problem of money in politics with specific, achievable proposals.

Absent a new Supreme Court majority that would revisit previous "money is a protected form of speech" rulings, real reform will be difficult. There are simply too many politicians, cronies and consultants who feed off the current system.

But Americans are frustrated with the status quo. Whether those frustrated voices can be heard over the powerful minority of wealthy special interests is a question that may be decided with this election.

REPRINTED FROM ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH