This morning, columnist Richard Cohen of the Washington Post vigorously endorses publicly funded elections and calls on the presidential candidates to make it happen.

His main point is that identifying the problem and voicing a need for "change" will not, by itself, solve the problem.  A further implication here is that the "change Washington" message works so well right now because voters desire a real, fundamental change in the way our politics work--but that achieving that change will take tangible solutions and vision, not just a good message.

My only quibble with Cohen is that he fails to mention that a vehicle for this change is already in place: the Fair Elections Now Act, with bipartisan sponsors and a strong coalition behind it.

But Cohen's logic is right, he places the blame on the system and not the candidates trying to work within it, and he highlights that it's only getting worse without enacting public financing.  It goes without saying that it's especially significant to have Cohen, a columnist who positions himself as middle-of-the-road and holds court in one of the major newspapers in the country, choosing this overheated primary season to be a moment to make a stand for major campaign reform.  Bravo.

In case you missed it, earlier this week we received responses from two top Presidential contenders, John Edwards and Barack Obama, committing to make full public financing of campaigns a priority in their campaigns and if elected President.  They responded to a letter sent from Common Cause President Bob Edgar with former Reps. Berk Bedell (D-IA) and Jim Leach (R-IA).

You can see their pledges here (Edwards) and here (Obama).

We've heard several candidates raise this issue on the campaign trail, with some--like Chris Dodd and Joe Biden, as well as Edwards--bringing it up repeatedly and without prompting.  But getting it in print is even better.  Kudos to those two, and we hope that others will make the commitment as well.

John Edwards announced several key policy positions on democracy over the weekend, including a commitment to pass and enact full public financing of congressional campaigns. His language left no doubt about where he places much of the blame for the lapses in our system: wealthy campaign donors, Washington lobbyists, and special interests.

I'm excited about this because Edwards' announcement, framed as a new "One Democracy" initiative, represents the deepest and most specific set of promises made by any of the front-running candidates in either party during this campaign. He commits to passage of several top Common Cause priorities, including "Clean Elections"-style public financing for Congress, based on the successful models of Maine and Arizona. He also covers key pieces of election reform--voter-verified paper ballots, election-day registration, and DC voting rights--and pledges to protect net neutrality.

Good for Edwards. The troubling evolution of our democracy into a wealth-dominated system that puts powerful special interests and high-dollar donors ahead of average Americans is something that most citizens know well, and most candidates witness firsthand. If they wonder why voter apathy persists and why "politician" remains a dirty word, they should look no further than the private financing system that breeds voter distrust and corruption. Yet we often hear little more than vague rhetoric from candidates about how they'll solve this core, systemic problem. Public financing of campaigns is critical and they should say so.

Presidential campaigns closed their third quarter of fundraising yesterday and their results are trickling out.  We heard Thursday that John Edwards opted for public financing and spending limits for the primary campaign,which actually gives him more money to spend right away, while also highlighting the tremendous clout that wealthy campaign contributors wield in the election process.  Now we're hearing from other campaigns.

One is Mitt Romney's, which has raised a total of nearly $40 million.  Oh, wait, that's $55 million, because he's generously given himself about $15 million over the course of the race.  I don't begrudge Mitt his millions, but to me there's something fundamentally wrong about a candidate for our highest public office using his personal wealth to gain a big advantage over his rivals.  You know who agrees with me?  Mitt Romney (in January):

This isn't confined to Romney.  John Kerry did the same thing--to a lesser degree--in 2004, when he loaned himself $6 million before Iowa.  You may remember that he won the Iowa caucuses that year.  For both of these guys, the "nightmare" isn't being "forced" to contribute to their own campaigns; the nightmare would be to have no vast fortune with which to contribute.

It's a shame that our system allows those with big money, especially when they're running in the race, to gain an advantage over their less wealthy competitors simply by virtue of their own personal fortune.  It has little to do with ideas or with ability as a future president.  It's just money.  But it buys a lot in campaigns for national office.

Our answer is simple: give candidates the ability to earn public money to run a viable, competitive campaign.  The first step will be to pass into law the Durbin-Specter Fair Elections Now Act, which would cover Congressional campaigns, and then to fix the outdated presidential public financing system before 2012.

Yesterday, John Edwards made the stunning announcement that he'll accept spending limits and take public financing to run his presidential primary campaign.  It's a courageous move, as Common Cause Prez Bob Edgar says in this press release.

Most of the chatter has centered on what this means for the horse race: is Edwards worried about falling too far behind his rivals, Obama and Clinton?  Does he expect low numbers when fundraising is reported on October 1?  If he were to wrap up the Democratic nomination, likely in February, what will this mean for Edwards from March through the convention?

All good questions, and I expect each one addresses part of his reasoning.  But the bigger story here--beyond the 2008 Democratic primary race, beyond the 2008 race as a whole--is that we have a serious problem in how we finance our campaigns, from the presidency on down, in this country.  And the experience and analysis of Edwards' decision drives that point home.

First, what of the merits of public funding over private financing?  In his announcement on CNN, Edwards says:

His analysis is spot on, and he deserves kudos for that.  Wealthy special interests wield great political power and voters are increasingly suspicious of who is calling the shots in Washington.  Indeed, part of Edwards' challenge is that the presidential public financing system is outdated in its current form, which is why we've pushed Congress to pass a bill that would update the system to reflect the costlier and longer election cycle.

But on a larger level, John Edwards taking public financing--and the resulting buzz--underscores how scarily important multimillion dollar fundraising is to this campaign and to many others.  What does the average voter see in all this?  That we're three months before the FIRST primary and over a year before the general election, yet the question of who can win the Presidency is being determined by who has raised the most millions, the majority of which comes from wealthy contributors who can afford a $1000 campaign check or more.

This is a dangerous road.  We've been on it for some time.  As Edwards supporters and Democratic primary voters suddenly worry, "Does this mean trouble?"--much like John McCain's backers and Republican primary voters reacted when his fundraising slipped--we witness, again, that campaign dollars get attention well before the voting begins.

This goes beyond the outcome in 2008.  We need to know if the contenders for President will make public financing of campaigns a priority issue if elected.  Because if they don't, it means we're relegated to an unending string of elections that favor wealthy campaign contributors and their lobbyists over the typical American voter.

I've spent the past two weeks working in Iowa to reach out to activists and organizations here to help get Presidential candidates talking about--and making commitments on--full public financing of campaigns.  This may be the one chance we have in the next four five-plus years for regular people to get in close enough contact with the candidates to bring this issue to their attention.

I find it especially relevant because so many candidates talk about how they'll "change Washington," change the culture, take on the greedy interests, "represent the people," and I'd like them to get into specifics.  And if they really want to do that, well, public financing is the obvious answer.

So I was incredibly refreshed to watch the Yearly Kos presidential forum this weekend and see not one, not two, not three, but at least four--and perhaps all--of the Democratic candidates saying, "we support public financing."

The clip is about eight minutes long, and it's all good, although the part I'm talking about starts at minute four and continues until nearly the end.

But this isn't just my issue.  This makes sense.  For one, voters are smart enough to want a change in Washington and to appreciate a candidate who can get specific about how they'll do it.  Maybe some are satisfied with a sound bite, but caucus-goers in Iowa, primary voters across the country, and even the general population is, I think, wise enough to know a real plan from a platitude.

And oh yeah, we also polled the public last year and found that to be overwhelmingly true: 74% of voters support full public financing of campaigns.

It's not just a good change for democracy, it's a good policy to promote if you want to get elected.  I hope the candidates catch on; I hope they paid attention to that sustained applause and partial standing ovation that Chris Dodd received when he mentioned public financing of campaigns at the forum.

In case they didn't, in Iowa we'll continue to ask them.

Former Senator and presidential hopeful John Edwards is the first candidate to publicly address telecommunications policy -- specifically, how we should best use the analog spectrum.

The what? As of February 2009, over-the-air broadcasting will switch to digital, and television stations will no longer be using their analog airwaves. What will become of the analog spectrum after February 2009 is a matter of great value to our democracy. The spectrum, also known as the airwaves, are a publicly-owned resource. They belong to you and me, the American people -- and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and the Congress ought to ensure that the public receives some benefit from this valuable resource.

John Edwards, acknowledging the significance of providing fair access to the public airwaves, wrote a letter to the FCC with the following suggestions:

A number of public interests groups are congratulating Mr. Edwards for addressing this issue and for raising the profile of the FCC, whose policies often remain under the radar. Spectrum policy is not always the most glamorous news topic, but what happens with our publicly owned airwaves is critical to ensuring that more Americans have fast and nondiscriminatory access to the world wide web.

We covered this earlier in the week but it's back in the news: how the subprime lending industry's practices led to a sharp rise in home foreclosure filings around the country. This time it's presidential contender John Edwards, who has openly and harshly critized predatory lending, learning that a hedge fund that hired him has also profited by investing in these predatory lenders:
This reflects a much larger problem....