Like others who have written here (Anrig, Faux, Newman, Ryan, Sifry, Waldman), I find Mark Schmitt’s recent post and article both insightful and provocative. I agree with much of what Mark says, including his major point that campaign finance reformers would be wise to focus on reforms that empower ordinary citizens within politics rather than reforms aimed primarily at restricting and regulating money within the process. And the corner may already have been turned on what the campaign reform community sets as its priorities.

Today, Senators Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) introduced their Fair Elections Now Act which allows candidates for Congress to turn away from the big money chase and rely completely on donors of $100 or less to run a well-funded competitive campaign. A House companion measure will soon be introduced by Rep. John Tierney (D-MA).

Candidates collect a specified threshold amount of small donations and then qualify for public financing, provided they agree to spending limits and then halt private fundraising for their campaigns. Anticipating that high-spending opponents might prey upon publicly financed office seekers and that they might also be the target of Swiftboat-style 30 second spots, the policy provides additional public “fair fight funds” under certain conditions. The proposal offers tremendous leverage for small donors, a level playing field for the candidates, and a fair and robust campaign debate for the voters.

As a first step to engage the public to advance this bill, my organization, Public Campaign, is launching a citizen cosponsor petition today – we strongly believe that the public must engage its lawmakers for this proposal to become law.

While the idea of public financing of elections has been around for more than a century, this specific policy was designed in the late 1980’s by issue activists and further developed by hands-on political practitioners concerned with equity in the electoral process. It was aimed at opening up the system and increasing the value of political participation by every member of our society as the rising costs of campaigns systematically shifted power to wealthy contributors and away from the grassroots.

Schmitt’s right to state the limits of an approach that is built only on obstructing the political voice of big money. But some restrictions strengthen the small donor democracy he espouses, and their loosening harms it. For example, the fall of the antiquated Presidential public financing system was accelerated by the doubling of individual contributions to federal campaigns. And the pro-grassroots incentive structure of the full public financing programs exemplified by the Arizona and Maine systems are enhanced by the prohibition on soliciting additional private funds once the candidate’s public money is in place. The publicly financed candidates in those two states, assured of a relatively level financial playing field, must depend on volunteer recruitment and backing from grassroots organizations in order to gain an edge over their opponents.

There have been some variations in the law from state-to-state. In 1998, Massachusetts voters passed a Clean Elections law by a two to one margin (later repealed by state lawmakers on a midnight voice vote). It allowed candidates to continue to collect small contributions throughout the campaign.

While Mark’s view divides the campaign finance reform community into two camps over the past ten years, the greatest energy and excitement in the community right now comes from the model he praises. The effort to restructure and revive the presidential public financing regime borrows policy provisions from both the New York City matching fund system and the Clean Elections programs. It is supported by virtually all the reform organizations that backed BCRA.

The Durbin-Specter effort has already drawn significant support from many of the largest issue and constituency groups in the country. From the Sierra Club to the NAACP to the Dolores Huerta Foundation, from the AFL-CIO to MoveOn to the League of Women Voters, groups that believe in grassroots activism are putting their weight behind the Fair Elections Now Act.

The revitalization of the Presidential partial public financing system and the establishment of Congressional Fair Elections legislation will likely be the central preoccupation of the campaign finance reform community and its allies in the years ahead. Both initiatives would increase the power of all voters within the process, whether they make small donations or contribute their time as volunteers. Further, making a priority of grassroots-oriented public funding aligns the reform community squarely with the recent positive developments in citizen engagement, whether it’s national voter mobilization efforts, netroots activism, or expanded constituency group political organizing - and that’s likely an alignment that will bring reformers to victory.