For all the attention paid to the high-profile public corruption scandals of the past year, from Baltimore to Upper Marlboro, one might assume that state lawmakers would be eager to institute some reforms when they convene for their annual 90-day session next week — if only to demonstrate to voters that they've been paying attention.

If so, Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler has certainly handed them a road map — albeit a somewhat blurry one — on 25 ways they might plug some holes in campaign finance law. The 118-page report presented this week by Mr. Gansler's advisory committee does a commendable job of outlining the problems but leaves most of the specific solutions to members of the legislature.

Uh-oh.

If there's one thing experience has shown, the General Assembly is home to no fewer than 188 experts on campaign finance law, who see the issue not through the broad lens of public interest but through the narrow blinders of their own political fortunes. For many, "reform" translates loosely into, "what's in it for me?"

Here's an early prediction. The Gansler report can be reduced to about 24 servings of proverbial broccoli in the form of potential new restrictions, requirements for public disclosure and closing of loopholes, and one tasty dessert — a suggestion that 20-year-old limits on individual campaign donations ($4,000 per candidate and $10,000 in aggregate) be loosened. Expect a heaping portion of the latter and no more than a polite sampling of the former.

Legislative leaders are still griping about the attorney general's failure to consult them about who should serve on his task force last fall. Admittedly, that may have been a political faux pas, but it also gives the report an air of independence (Mr. Gansler didn't directly participate in the proceedings either) that boosts its credibility.

Not that most in Annapolis weren't already well aware of the shortcomings in Maryland campaign finance law, from its failure to anticipate social media like Facebook or innovations like texting to its outright laxity in many instances. Too many have taken full advantage of these weaknesses and omissions to think otherwise.

Surely, the two most egregious examples of this are the way current law has permitted candidates on the same "slate" (often a truly meaningless and arbitrary designation) to share donations, and the ability of donors to use limited liability corporations (LLCs) to circumvent limits. This has allowed millions of dollars to change hands under less-than-forthright circumstances.

One potential approach toward good government (well, at least better government) not addressed by the attorney general's report is voluntary public financing along the lines of what Maine and Arizona have already developed. Even with a projected state budget deficit of more than $1 billion, there are few better investments in democracy than allowing candidates an opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of private fundraising (which can amount to little more than legalized bribery) altogether.

Still, it's possible lawmakers will be shamed into action. Certainly, Democrats have talked a good game about public disclosure in the wake of the Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling and its boost to corporate clout. The plea-deal resignation of Baltimore Mayor Sheila Dixon and the federal corruption investigations into state Sen. Ulysses Currie and former Prince George's County Executive Jack B. Johnson and his wife should also raise concerns about influence peddling in this state.

Gov. Martin O'Malley ought to be leading the charge. The $500,000 loan he was given late in his 2006 run for governor by a prominent attorney is yet another example of how easy it is to skirt existing campaign finance law.

What would be unacceptable is for lawmakers to simply loosen individual contribution limits, tinker around the edges of existing rules and then declare campaign finance law reformed. Beginning Wednesday, they have 90 days to prove themselves more responsible standard bearers of state and local government than that.