This morning I was privileged to address the Connecticut State Convention of Missionary Baptists.  There, in a room of about 200 people, I was the lone white person - talking to a huge crowd who came to the convention to discuss their religion, praise God, and commune with fellow Baptists.  I was nervous beforehand.  Would these good people really want to listen to a white activist talking about something that had nothing to do with their convention or mission?  I had confidence that I would be politely received, but was unsure whether I could generate any enthusiasm for the program.

With a lot of excitement over the outpouring of support from small donors for the leading presidential candidates in the last few months, Laura MacCleery of the Brennan Center for Justice analyzed the "small donor revolution" today in Roll Call (subscription req'd, so I'll paste a bunch of her column below the fold).

She does a fine job articulating the difference between an influx in presidential campaign donations over the last few months and the continued reliance of Congress -- and, generally, the presidential campaigns -- on wealthy donors, while pointing out the importance of contribution limits in the current system and in an ideal public financing system in the future.

Campaign finance reform had a good day in the Connecticut General Assembly yesterday.

Legislation designed to make adjustments to the Citizens Election Program, Connecticut's program for public financing for political campaigns, was passed overwhelmingly in the House and Senate, and immediately sent to Gov. M. Jodi Rell's office, where she is expected to sign it.

The bill, which was drafted in part in response to the Citizens' Elections Programs' experience in a few recent special elections, accomplishes a few important things:

North Carolina passed a full public financing system for judicial candidates in 2002, then expanded the law last year to certain statewide (Council of State) offices.  Having statewide elected officers run using public funds is a nice idea in a vacuum, but the big question is, will candidates choose that option?

In fact, we'd already heard the answer: yes.  In the past two cycles, 2004 and 2006, 20 out of 28 judicial candidates in NC ran with public funds.  Now, we're hearing it again: they want in.  The coalition announced that an "overwhelming majority" of eligible North Carolina candidates will indeed use the system this cycle; a quick look over the list and a brushing off of my old math skills (in this case, addition) shows that 22 out of the 27 have filed to use public funds in 2008.  More than 80%.

Voters like it, candidates like it.  It's common sense.

One initial observation: the incredible influx of small donors into the presidential campaigns is fantastic.  The Obama campaign this cycle was the first to involve so many more small donors than ever before, fueled in large part by the internet making campaign giving easier, and both Clinton and McCain's campaigns have seen a surge in small gifts, too.

But while the mainstream media highlights that small donor explosion, a story that's being swept under the rug is this: the same old thing is still happening.

That is, major donors and powerful interests are still dominating the money primary for Senate races around the country, and in fact, their role is increasing even as the role of small donors increases in the presidential race.  I've documented how the small donor explosion is masking the continued role of major donors in the presidential race, but I find the Congressional issue more insidious.  Because few are paying attention while large donors out-contribute small donors by a factor at least six to one in Senate races, and you can bet the same dynamic applies to House races.  In other words, regardless of who the next President is, he or she will still need to pass laws through a Congress that was elected on the strength of wealthy donors financing their campaigns.

Luckily, the Campaign Finance Institute has crunched the numbers and painted this picture of the early Senate money primaries in stark relief:

The presidential public financing system is broken and needs to updated and expanded.  We have no congressional public financing system, while a strong proposal--the Fair Elections Now Act--sits in Congress and could move, especially if the next President is supportive.

With all the furor over who's taking public financing in the primary and general elections of 2008, the bigger question for our democracy and the sanity of our campaign finance system is: What will any of these candidates do to reform the system if they are elected?

Common Cause, with our allies Public Campaign and Public Citizen, addressed that question today in this memo, "Presidential Candidates and Public Financing of Elections."