Editorial: Tighten limits on cash

The public financing system for presidential elections is broken, but Congress still has time to fix it for the 2012 race.

In 2008, spending by all presidential candidates rose 80 percent over four years earlier. President Obama alone raised a staggering $746 million for his primary and general-election campaigns.

Obama had initially pledged to accept public financing in 2008, but he broke that promise when he realized what a prodigious fund-raiser he was.

Much of Obama's money was raised through small donations on the Internet, but too much of it still came from the big-money "bundlers," who enjoy too much influence with candidates.

Now there's a new plan in Congress that would help to level the playing field for presidential candidates and put less emphasis on wealthy donors.

The proposal would provide candidates with public funds of up to $100 million for their primary and up to $200 million for the general election, if they pledge not to accept individual contributions of more than $1,000 (the existing limit is $2,400).

Public financing was created in the wake of the Watergate scandal in the 1970s to prevent the presidency from being sold to the highest bidder. For the most part, it has worked. But in the late 1990s, "soft money" donations from unions and corporations overwhelmed the system. And the public donations were not indexed for inflation, so they didn't keep up with the costs of modern campaigns.

The current system imposed spending caps, which turned out to be far too low compared with what the candidates could raise outside the plan. The new proposal, whose sponsors include Reps. Michael N. Castle (R., Del.) and Todd R. Platts (R., Pa.), would eliminate limits on spending.

Instead, the legislation would encourage small contributions of $200 or less by providing a four-to-one public match for such donations. The current system provides an equal match for the first $250 per individual contributor.

The money would come from people who check off the voluntary contribution box on their tax returns. By raising those contributions from $3 to $10, the system would provide more than $1 billion for each four-year election cycle. The current setup hasn't kept pace with the rising cost of campaigns, prompting more and more candidates to opt out of it.

Putting the focus on small donations should help to minimize the damage done by the Supreme Court decision earlier this year that allows unlimited spending by corporations on individual races. President Obama should throw his full support behind this effort.

Public financing for presidential elections needs to be revived. It will promote competition among lesser-known candidates, further reduce the influence of fat cats in elections, and boost the public's confidence in the fairness of our democracy.