Throughout the campaign, both primary and general, one of the Obama campaign’s biggest selling points was campaign finance reform. As a Senator he co-sponsored a bill aimed at expanding public financing and he has been an outspoken supporter of public funding although he refused it during his presidential campaign, drawing criticism and accusations of that greatest of political sins, flip-flopping. Still, he has recently asserted “I am firmly committed to reforming the system as president, so that it’s viable in today’s campaign climate.”

Now there’s a bill on the table that would greatly increase public funding for candidates. Called the “Fair Elections Now” act, in addition to banning lobbyists, it suggests that public funding be issued to House candidates who raise at least $50,000 in their home states from at least 1,500 residents, with a similar rule in effect for Senate candidates. Additionally, candidates opposing self-financed opponents or in particularly tight races would receive match-donations at a ratio of four to one (that is $4 for every $1 raised) for in-state donations of $100 or less.

Proposed by a bipartisan group of congressmen including Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), and Rep. John B. Larson (D-Conn.) it is an aggressive measure, but not a particularly new one. Over the past decade, campaign finance reform bills have become commonplace, cropping up all over the sub-committees in various permutations and from various sources. For the most part, they haven’t gotten much attention, probably because finance is not the most enthralling of subjects to think about.

Supporters of the act hope that this permutation will pass thanks to the president’s aggressive support of campaign finance reform and current public dismay with the power of corporate giants like recently-bailed-out AIG. With economics suddenly a much more interesting subject, and the public more educated about how campaign finance works thanks to President Obama’s stress on the issue, what would once have been an easy to brush aside measure is suddenly in the public eye. If it succeeds where similar bills have failed, it will be a victory for the principal of change, whether or not it aligns with the politics behind the “change” motto.

Popularity: 1% [?]