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.

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."

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.

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.

A big story in the presidential campaign of late has been the revelation that Norman Hsu, a major bundler who brought in nearly $1 million for Hillary Clinton's campaign, is a crook.  There's more to unpack from this story and its implications for campaign finance, but for now it's worth highlighting the Washington Post arguing for better bundler disclosure rules as well as a fix to the broken presidential public financing system (in yesterday's lead editorial):

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.