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

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

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

Beyond pitching term limits for all lawmakers and statewide officials, the governor called for a ban on corporate campaign contributions, a cut in individual contribution limits from a maximum of $55,900 to $1,000, as well as a requirement that lawmakers disclose all their outside sources of income.

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

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

Of course, all politicians insist such contributions do nothing to influence their voting behavior. They also argue that big-money fundraising is required to conduct the kind of ad wars necessary to win most elections in this electronic age.

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

If politicians are truly shameless about who is paying their way, they should not be averse to advertising who stands behind them–so to speak.

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

What do you folks think?