The New York Times calls out the Obama campaign's recent pursuit of Hillary Clinton's biggest bundlers as a demonstration that while the small donor surge is terrific, it does not replace public financing in large part because it means that lots of cash is coming from wealthy donors, too.What we've been saying all along.

Update: Worth noting that last week USA Today criticized Obama's decision to opt out of public funding, but also published Obama's response in which he said, "The decision not to participate in the public financing system wasn't an easy one — especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," and "I am firmly committed to reforming the system as president, so that it's viable in today's campaign climate." That's great, but he needs to keep saying that, not just in one response column but in campaigning throughout the country.

Common Cause continues its efforts to hold power accountable.

Abuse of Power: Forging the Path to Recovery

Common Cause hosted a distinguished panel on June 10 to discuss the widespread abuse of power engaged in by the current Administration. The Administration has disregarded the rule of law through over-broad assertions of executive power, abuse of signing statements, and policies that arguably flout the Constitution regarding interrogation, detention, and intelligence gathering. The Congress has repeatedly failed to perform its constitutionally mandated oversight duties in each of these areas.

The panelists were charged with examining these disturbing trends and with considering how best to restore the constitutional constraints that have served our country well since its inception.

With Barack Obama's decision to restrict both his campaign and the DNC from taking PAC's and lobbyists' contributions, he's indicated a willingness to change the campaign fundraising dynamic.  That's an exciting step for someone on such a large stage as the presidential election -- and we can only hope that it portends a strong commitment to continuing to reform the system if he's elected.

But it's complicating affairs for other Democrats who feel they need to continue taking contributions from any source in order to afford to run a modern-day congressional campaign (h/t OpenLeft):

The trend continues in the presidential race.  As the Campaign Finance Institute's analysis of April fundraising numbers shows, small donors constitute a substantial majority of the recent financial support for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Both Democratic candidates raised more than half of their April funds in increments of $200 or less.  John McCain remains dependent on large donors for the majority of his support.  This does not tell the whole story -- after all, all three candidates relied on major donor support to launch their campaigns -- but it portends an exciting six months leading up to the November election.  Hopefully more and more small donors buy into the presidential election process with a contribution and feel a greater stake in the outcome.

As I've noted in the past, this shouldn't be confused with trends in the races for Congress, which are moving in the opposite direction, where major donors dominate and small donors are "not a factor."  We need Clean Elections-style public financing for Congress now more than ever.

The Politico ran with a story today, "Reform Allies Defend, Hold Fire on McCain" detailing the response of reform groups to the McCain and Obama candidacies, heavily implying that Common Cause and other reform groups are afraid to criticize McCain and even that we have no credibility in commenting on the presidential race because of our once-close relationship with McCain.

The story ignores that Common Cause has already publicly taken McCain to task: our letter in March explicitly urged McCain to support reforms "both in actions and in words" and stated that "it is clear to us that you need an FEC vote to allow you to withdraw" from the primary public financing system.

And it leaves out the most important question on reform in this election cycle: what will the candidates do to reform our democracy and get big money out of politics if elected?  Indeed, we already addressed this question with two of our reform allies, putting together a comprehensive review of what each candidate (McCain, Obama, Clinton) has done or committed to do if elected.  

Common Cause is far from the only organization bemoaning the focus on questions of "what is [candidate] doing on the campaign trail?" instead of the more important question of "what will [candidate] do in his/her term as President?"  That problem is one of the press in general, on all policy issues, not just democracy reform.  Nevertheless, as we've said time and again, that is the question we ought to ask of the presidential candidates.  For the Politico to leave that out is an error that misses a critical question we've put to McCain, Obama, and Clinton.  Feel free to read our analysis here.

I'm usually the money-in-politics guy, but I can't resist.  Add me to the list of so many observers who found last night's Democratic debate a grotesque affront to productive political discourse.  I won't go into the details; the whole thing, on the eve of a critical primary in what has been a remarkable, impassioned, inspiring presidential season, was devoid of almost any discussion of issues that Americans care about and that affect people across the country: health care; our foreign policy; the economy and the housing crisis; etc.  Instead we were served warmed-over "gotcha" questions that were tired fare to begin with: a pin on your lapel, he-said she-said, nonsense.

It's fitting, then, that Katie's post below highlights Democracy Now! and, more broadly, the need for a diversity of voices in our media.

If there's one thing last night's debate showed, it wasn't about either candidate, it was that we need more voices in our media because the ones we've got sure aren't doing the job and our whole democracy suffers for it.

The New York Times weighs in again on a variety of money issues in the presidential race today.  The editorial, "Money and the People's Choices," ends thus:That conclusion hits the mark.  The editorial is generally a condemnation of all three major candidates for specific mishaps and misstatements.  While the criticisms are valid, it's only part of the story; we put out our thoughts in Friday's statement, noting that all three candidates have made some important commitments and taken specific steps in support of long-term public financing reform, too.

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."