The Post-Tribune, Chicago, IL
March 27, 2007

Election financing reform is one of the most talked-about issues in Washington. It rarely moves beyond the talking stage.

Last week's introduction of the Fair Elections Reform Act offers new promise for the imposition of spending limits and public financing for elections to Congress.

For the first time, an election-financing reform bill was introduced with bipartisan support. Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Arlen Specter, R-Pa., are the authors.

The proposal, which is patterned after what some cities and states have imposed, would return elections to the voters and drastically reduce the role of big special-interest money that has negatively affected our election process.

The bill would work like this: A candidate for the U.S. Senate from Indiana would have to obtain 6,000 $5 contributions in order to qualify for public financing -- the source of which is still being worked out. The candidate acquiring the 6,000 contributions would receive $1.3 million in public financing for the primary election and $1.95 million for the general election.

Should that candidate's opponent reject public financing and opt to take contributions from special interests, fair-fight funds would be available for the privately financed candidate. Importantly, voters would know where each candidate received his or her money.

Public Campaign, a not-for-profit group dedicated to reducing the role of special-interest money, said the legislation would allow candidates to say "no" to the politics of big checks and the endless money chase, and "yes" to putting voters first.

The proposal would go a long way toward eliminating the Jack Abramoffs of the world and take the constraints off congressmen who feel indebted to their financiers.