We doubt that many Minnesotans relish the idea of a larger role for special interests in legislative elections. That may explain why several moves that would almost certainly produce that undesirable result flew under the radar at the Legislature until last week.

The most far-reaching — and damaging — move would end Minnesota's 40-year-old arrangement for subsidizing legislative campaigns with tax dollars. A subsidy is triggered when a major-party candidate who has collected a qualifying amount of private donations agrees to limit his or her total campaign spending. Subsidies in 2016 were typically about $5,000 for House and $9,000 for Senate candidates — small sums, but enough to induce people of modest means to run and to afford candidates some degree of freedom from special-interest money and the implicit strings that go with it.

The program is credited for helping Minnesota maintain a "citizen Legislature" and a reputation for clean government. It's been widely used by candidates in both parties. In 2016, 85 percent of legislative candidates received subsidies in amounts based in part on party preferences expressed by each district's taxpayers via a $5 income tax "checkoff."

The checkoff minimizes — but does not eliminate — the flow of public money to a candidate or party not of a taxpayers' choosing. It's that undirected trickle that the program's GOP opponents cite to justify their teardown. The subsidy and checkoff would disappear under provisions tucked into a state agency budget bill. The bill also cuts funding and limits the rule-making authority of the state Campaign Finance and Public Disclosure Board, which administers campaign-finance laws and keeps the flow of money in politics visible to the public.

Meanwhile, the GOP-controlled Legislature's failure to act on DFL Gov. Mark Dayton's nominations to the board has left the six-member body with only three members, one short of a quorum and unable to function.

Together, these moves would have Minnesota surrender some of this state's best tools for resisting the onslaught of excessive special-­interest influence in state government. Our hunch is that most Minnesotans would prefer to see such tools strengthened, not dropped.