A bit more analysis of the New Jersey Clean Elections pilot program today, including an argument in favor of expanding the program as part of an effort to counter growing voter apathy.An estimated 30% of registered voters in New Jersey participated in last week's election; apparently a historic low. The article has a few suggestions for increasing turnout by tackling historic reasons for distrust between officials and voters, and money in elections is one of them:  The Clean Elections bill, a blast of fresh air through the murk of campaigns past, allows for public funding of campaigns for candidates who qualify -- it must be extended to the primary season, which has yet to be swept of mud. The Ashbury Park Press collects what it calls a "mixed" collection of reactions to the Clean Elections pilot program, including that of Public Campaign Action Fund's David Donnelly (a New Jersey resident): "This is not an exact science,[. . .] Clearly one of the benefits of these systems is that candidates spend their time talking to voters and not running around raising money." Perhaps that emphasis on voter contact is part of what Assembly candidate Pat Walsh feels contributed to his appreciation for the system: "You can look at it a lot of different ways[. . .] There's no question in my mind that my voice was heard substantially more than it would have been had I not had the Clean Elections funding." The criticisms run along the usual lines, and the argument against Clean Elections put forward by Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose is particularly confusing -- she claims it's a bad idea because voters don't want campaigns to be publicly funded, yet she opted to participate in the voluntary Clean Elections program.