USA Today has an "Improving Elections" editorial piece up that includes five sensible recommendations for a better presidential campaign, including paper records of votes cast on electronic voting machines, monitoring and curtailing the influence of 527s and other independent soft money groups, and taking public financing.

While they won't all be easy, they get it right in terms of making the election a boost for democracy and tackling important issues, rather than about trivialities and wealthy interests.

Two Post editorials today on campaign finance and election issues.  The first criticizes the recent attention to lobbyists within the Obama and McCain campaigns, and includes a strong argument for public financing.  My take: the Post is mostly right.  They're wrong to dismiss the lobbyist question entirely--it IS a powerful illustration of how power players and powerful influences move within Washington and through federal campaigns--but they're right that it's not a long-term prescription for change.The second piece takes a look at the FEC -- or lack thereof -- and highlights one of the most egregiously partisan nomination maneuvers in an agency that is defined by partisan maneuvers.

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.

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.

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

They keep it light hearted, but it's excellent to see coverage of the money -- not just how much, but where it comes from, and whether that's good for democracy or not. That's not a rhetorical question. More small donors getting involved is a great development, but it's not clear how permanent and widespread the trend is. I'll be taking a closer look at those trends and campaign finance policies and posting some notes on that in the upcoming week.

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.

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.

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: