As indepedent expenditures by 527 groups infilrate elections at all levels, solutions are being shopped around to get better control over these groups that have gained greater influence as contribution limits to candidates have gone into effect. This article in the Whittier Daily News about an election contest for a California Assembly seat profiles several of those proposals.

The "no contribution limits" camp squares off against those advocating contribution limits to 527s, just as contributions to candidates are limited. Julie Rajan of the California Clean Money Campaign however, offers the most comprehensive solution: full public financing of elections, which allows candidates who face independent expenditures against them to receive additional funding to fight back:

 

A candidate who pledged to accept public funds would get public funding to match the amount of money being spent by independent groups. That could neutralize the effect the groups have on an election, she said.

"We've seen in other states that run public finance elections that once there is a guarantee that funding will be matched, independent groups start to spend less," said Rajan. She named Arizona as the state with the most extensive public financing system in place.

Contribution limits will just force the money into another channel, and we'll be back facing the same problem in future years -- Clean Elections public financing creates an alternative stream of funding, and voters know exactly where that money came from.