The editorial asks whether limiting the influence of money on our elected officials is "worth the effort."  Well, I suppose that depends on how much you care about health care, breathable air, affordable gas prices,...any of a hundred concerns of the everyday citizen who can't afford her own personal lobbyist in Sacramento.  Is keeping special interest money far away from elected officials and the public policy they oversee worth the effort?  Yes. Next up is the familiar argument that it costs money - is this something Californians want to pay for?  Calirornians already pay the price for privately financed elections, with lobbyists in the employ of big money interests greasing the wheels for legislation that works in their favor, and not in the favor of the majority of voters.  The editorial does make the point that the public financing proposals being considered throughout California (the statewide ballot initiative, the LA City Council plan) are voluntary - and as recent Supreme Court decisions have shown, these voluntary systems show the way forward for meaningful reform.  If reform is going to pass Constitutional muster, it will be in this model.  And as to the question posed in the title, how clean do we want our elections?  The answer, according to recent polling done by Lake Research Partners is: very.  Seventy-four percent of voters favor voluntary public finacing for federal elections.