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.

This is good:

Bundling has become a regular practice and a way for individuals to wield substantial power with lawmakers for whom they "bundle" checks totalling $10K, $50K, $200K or more.  Disclosure of who they are and how much they've raised is important to openness in our democracy.

And frankly, it will highlight big money's role in politics and make it harder for those profiting under that system to avoid the limelight. Hopefully that makes it more enticing for lawmakers to pass much-needed public financing reform and eliminate the need for constant big-money-driven campaign fundraising altogether.

Man, the editorial boards are hitting Democrats hard on the lobby reform issue - as they should be. Common Cause has been on the case, as well as the rest of our partners in the reform community. This is too important an issue to sit idly by while lawmakers act to protect their own interests over those of their constituents.

Today it's the New York Times on the offensive. Why can't the House Democrat rank-and-file understand what's apparent to everyone else?

Excuse me, Congressman, but your profession at the moment is Representative of the people of the 8th District of Massachusetts, not lobbyist-in-training.

If everything goes as planned, it looks like we can finally get some movement on ethics...and not a moment too soon!

Last November, voters overwhelmingly voted to send legislators a message: ethics are important. Don't believe me? Take a look at the exit polls. 74% of voters said that ethics was either "very important" or "extremely important." Since voters made that statement, we've had scandals involving Rep. Rick Renzi (R-AZ), Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA), Mark Zachares, Rep. Tom Feeney (R-FL)...and scandals involving the Justice Department, specifically the ousted attorneys who were investigating people like Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA). There are also the Bush Administration officials that either are under investigation or who resigned in disgrace. And finally, there is the lobbyist at the center of it all, Jack Abramoff!

I don't know about you, but this is all getting a little hard for me to keep track of. I'm beginning to wonder if there is anyone left in Washington who doesn't have a Common Blog smart tag with their name on it! It's time for Congress to finally get serious on ethics reform. Lobbying reform would be a great way to start...

The New York Times is urging the House of Representatives to heed the warning of the "black-hat and easy-money grin of Jack Abramoff" and take action on "bundling," the harvesting of individual donations into a larger package that can curry favor with a lawmaker.

It's hard to imagine the Congressmen needing even more reasons to enact real reforms, but if they still need convincing, the Times editorial says, look no further than the recent events surrounding Reps. John Doolittle (R-CA) and Rick Renzi (R-AZ) and their "suspected special-interest machinations."  After all, we're reminded, "Last November's voters are still watching for something better than business as usual."