Courtesy of the Brennan Center's Laura MacCleery and Andrew Stengel this summary of the principal shortcomings of the current presidential partial public financing system, and the major changes that need to be made to ensure the system can continue to do its job mediating the influence of big contributions on the electoral process and allowing candidates without access to deep pockets to remain competitive.Since the law was originally passed in the wake of Watergate not much has been done to keep it current with the ever-evolving fundraising and campaigning landscapes: To receive matching public funds in the primary -- up to $250 for every donation up to the current federal limit for individuals of $2,300 -- candidates agree to abide by state-by-state spending limits set by an arcane formula: $200,000 plus cost of living adjustment since 1974, or the voting age population multiplied by 16 cents, whichever is greater. This formula is out-of-whack: each state has a unique political calculus, which varies among candidates and election cycles.According to the Federal Election Commission's formula, does it make sense for the limits for New York, Florida and Texas to be roughly the same (respectively, $10 million, $9.5 million and $11.6 million)? On the other end of the spectrum, the limit for New Hampshire (and Maine and Vermont) is $841,000. Given the Granite State's "first-in-the-nation status" for the primaries, a cap of less than $1 million is not a 2008 reality.There was no way to anticipate the meteoric rise in campaign spending that has taken everyone by surprise. But now that it's a reality, what steps can we take to keep presidential public financing from slipping into the abyss? In sum: raise the spending caps, make it a lump sum to spend instead of restricting the spending by state, and distribute it earlier.Late last year, Sens. Feingold (D-Wis.) and Collins (R-Maine) and Reps. Price (D-N.C. and Shays (R-Conn.) anticipated these issues and introduced the Presidential Public Funding Act. The bills do most of what's suggested here and more, including raising the check-off to $10 for individuals and $20 for couples to account for the increased grants.