The Christian Science Monitor offers up its concerns about the contribution bundlers upon whom presidential candidates increasingly rely. Calling the trend a "danger to campaign integrity," they advocate either a massive overhaul of the bundling procedures (more disclosure and attention to lobbyist involvement) or a more robust presidential public financing system that would obviate the need to depend on high-dollar bundlers in the first place. The bundling issue raises another concern: the drift away from public financing. This post-Watergate reform was to reduce the potential for influence-buying, put candidates on a more equal financial footing, and relieve them of the pressure to constantly raise funds. It has mostly worked for three decades and is the norm in European democracies (which run blessedly short campaigns).But the current public-finance program doesn't work today, largely because it hasn't kept pace with costs. One way to keep Hsu-type bundling in check is to pass a more far-reaching bundling reform. The other is to update public financing so candidates don't have to seek bundlers in the first place.