Political reformers have won some and lost some in this spring's Legislature war against pay-to-play politics.

Like any group that doesn't get its way, the reform community probably has whined a bit too much and understated its wins. The wins are considerable, including stronger open-records laws, a revamp of the state's procurement system and a requirement that lawmakers actually vote on their pay hikes from now on.

But one supposed "reform" is woefully lacking, and do-gooders are absolutely right to scream about it.

I'm talking about the new caps on campaign contributions, something that on its face appears to be reform but, in realty, effectively entrenches those who already have the power.

Yes folks, in the wondrous and mysterious ways of Springfield, a big "reform" has strengthened the hand of legislative leaders and boosted the power of incumbents to hang onto office. And it's made it harder for outsiders to break their way in.

Amazing how those things work out, isn't it.

Here's what I'm talking about.

Under current law, Illinois has no limits on campaign contributions to candidates for the General Assembly and their leaders. That means powerful interests -- horse tracks and unions, utilities and payday lenders -- can and do spread around lots of cash, often around the time that lawmakers are dealing with those groups' issues.

Much of the money does not go directly to individual candidates. Even in Illinois, one lawmaker -- call him Sen. Smith -- would have a hard time explaining why he got a $50,000 check from, say, a tobacco company. Instead, the dough goes to committees run by the Democratic and Republican leaders of the House and Senate.

As a result, the money is hidden, kind of -- that is, until Sen. Smith's leader (if so inclined) packages it with other donations big and small and ships it back to him at election time.

It's a great system. Money gets nicely washed. Interest groups get to buy wholesale. Leaders get to keep their members on a short leash. And Sen. Smith gets plausible deniability: "The leader did it, not me."

Anyone interested in good government would not want to strengthen such a system. But that's what they just did in Springfield.

First, lawmakers imposed caps on contributions: $5,000 per year from an individual, $10,000 from a political action committee, business or union. That sounds good, and will indeed restrict how much Sen. Smith can raise himself.

BUT, "multi-candidate committees" -- the kind run by folks like House Speaker Michael Madigan and Senate President John Cullerton -- can donate up to $90,000 a year to a given candidate. AND they can spend an unlimited amount on a candidate's behalf.

So, under the new law, Sen. Smith faces new limits on what he can raise himself. But his leaders will be all but unrestricted in taking care of him -- if, that is, he takes care of them, by voting the right way.

It gets worse.

Under existing law, some outside groups with really involved donors have been able to circumvent leaders and play a big election role, groups such as Personal PAC, the abortion-rights group. As Rich Miller at Capitol Fax point out, they're known for spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on their champions.

But under the bill that passed the Legislature and now needs only a signature from Gov. Pat Quinn, Personal PAC could donate or spend a total of only $10,000 a year on Sen. Smith. While, say, Mr. Cullerton's committee could donate $90,000 a year to Sen. Smith and spend an unlimited amount on his behalf.

Sen. Don Harmon, D-Oak Park, a generally good guy who wrote this pending new law, notes that any two lawmakers would be free to form "multi-candidate committees" -- not just legislative leaders. Eventually, the money and control will "disperse," he says.

But I have my doubts. So does reformer David Hoffman, Chicago's inspector general, who points out that multi-candidate committees are legal now but really haven't been formed by anyone except the four legislative leaders.

Other doubts come from Personal PAC chief Terry Cosgrove, whose group is considering legal action. That fact is, personal PAC will not be allowed to spend as much on an individual candidate as will Messrs. Cullerton and Madigan. "That's really unfair," he says.

My friend Mike Lawrence, who has watched Springfield for decades as a journalist, insider and professor, says the new law is typical of what capitol politics has become: a game of accumulating power for its own sake, rather than using it for the public good.

He's right. Anyone who doubts it ought to take a good look at the disaster otherwise known as the just-passed state budget.

Illinois government is broken. This kind of "reform" won't fix it.