A couple of days ago New York Governor-elect Eliot Spitzer outlined his first steps in implementing the sweeping campaign finance reform he promised during his election bid - including new donation limits. Today, two articles in New York newspapers offer insight into the state's fundraising woes, and offer further evidence that a public financing option is necessary. First, the Rochester Democrat & Chronicle delves into the metrics of the Spitzer v. Faso gubernatorial campaign, outlinining Spitzer's tremendous financial advantage (10 to 1) and overwhelming electoral victory. The article also explores the fundraising rift between candidates in other high-profile statewide races. Spitzer is on the record in support of public financing, and Rachel Leon of Common Cause New York says it's badly needed: "This race is the poster child for why we need public campaign financing. If someone gets outspent 10 to one, how do they get their message out?" Meanwhile, Newsday has this story on Steve Levy, a Suffolk County Executive who has pushed campaign finance reform in the past. He's selling $25,000 breakfast meetings and spots at exclusive cocktail receptions to his biggest donors. Levy's spokesperson is quoted explaining that though Levy has taken a stand against campaign finance excess this is how the game is played (and of course, the money has no influence on what he supports). Indeed the director of the Long Island Progressive Coalition is quoted at the end of the article saying this is how things work without a public financing option in place. Seems like it's about time, no?