I'm cross posting a piece here on small donors, which I worked with our president Bob Edgar to put together, looking at the trends in small donor giving this cycle for presidential and congressional candidates -- the two are very different -- and how that impacts our work to limit big money's role and engage more people in our political system.

Check it out below the fold.

Check out the latest MobLogic episode on the mountains of campaign contributions collected by Obama, Clinton, and McCain.

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:

I just got back from a remarkable speech from Prof. Lawrence Lessig, sponsored by the Sunlight Foundation, on the launch of his new organization and effort called Change Congress.

Lessig is taking on the issue of corruption of Congress and makes a compelling case that trust in our institutions and the perception of corruption argue for change, and that this is the "first change" even if it's not the most important.  He's focused on public financing, earmarks, contributions from PACs and lobbyists, and transparency.

Change Congress will include a pledge campaign that involves both candidate and citizen commitments to reform as well as campaign donations to candidates who take the vow. And it will feature an interactive wiki effort to track certain corruption metrics by congressional district.  The long term plan isn't completely fleshed out--at least not publicly--but the idea and the initial strategy are promising.  And Lessig has a great deal of credibility from his work on the Creative Commons.

One thing I'm particularly interested in is how Change Congress will allow interaction between supporters and whether it will facilitate actions beyond the online space.  In other words, as people join the effort online, will they be able to connect to each other and find additional ways to push for a reform-minded congressional district, both through online and offline activity?  What about collaborating on state and local reforms? I asked Joe Trippi -- Lessig's partner in the launch -- about his ideas on this and he said they're focused on the launch for now but it's something they want to think more about. We shall see.

This kind of innovation and angle on the problems we face in Congress is exciting and necessary.  Keep an eye on it, and as a citizen you can take their pledge.

On the road promoting the power of the people and his latest book that praises it, author Jim Hightower stopped in Connecticut during a trip through the Northeast for a couple of appearances.

The first event was the public event at West Hartford Town Hall, which drew by our count close to 125 people.  Jim's speech was fantastic, and he gave Connecticut credit for its new public financing law, which he said was absolutely necessary to make meaningful change. He spent roughly 30 minutes on Q&A from the audience, ranging from questions on immigration to whether he was planning on running for president (evidently, he's not.) Throughout it all, Jim gave thoughtful, intelligent and of course witty answers. He spent the remainder of time signing books and chatting with folks.

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:

Common Cause/NY is saddened by the situation which led to Governor Spitzer's resignation today. Our thoughts are with the Spitzer family and we hope that they will weather this storm.

At the same time, we look forward to working with Lt. Governor David Paterson as he assumes the responsibilities of the governorship of our great state. We are genuinely impressed with the bi-partisan reputation that precedes Mr. Paterson's entry to the Governor's Mansion and know firsthand that he is a strong supporter of meaningful reform.

The latest presidential campaign skirmish over the public financing system misses a couple of key points and has involved a narrow focus and a fair amount of candidate bashing.  Let's take a look at the facts.

Obama made a commitment to use public funds in the general election if he wins the nomination and if his Republican opponent made the same commitment.  His words seemed clear, but now his campaign spokesman appears to be backtracking from that statement.

McCain made a similar commitment.  He said he would use public funds in the primary, but he changed course - even using a bank loan with the promise of future public funds as collateral - and has now skipped public financing in the primary.

It appears that both candidates had a change of heart.

We would like to see both general election candidates - whomever they are - use public financing because it reduces the influence of large special interest donors.  But the system is out of date and in need of a fix, too.  As we've said for some time now, it's just as important - if not more so - that the next President make it a priority to update and expand the public financing system.

Here's what we know about their stances and history.