New Jersey's Courier Post has given the state's Clean Elections program quite positive coverage so it's a little disappointing to see this article's headline that gets a little Chicken Little about the future of the Clean Elections pilot program.The Supreme Court decision on the Millionaires Amendment -- which ruled, in essence, that it was unconstitutional for candidates facing wealthy self-financing opponents to be exempted from certain contribution limits if they were significantly outspent -- is starting to trickle down to the states and influence their thinking on campaign finance issues, and public financing systems. While New Jersey's Office of Legislative Services is now saying that the matching funds provision of the state's Clean Elections law might no longer pass legal muster, that hardly means Clean Elections is, as the headline suggests, "unconstitutional." What it may mean is that the state is going to have to think up a new alternative to the matching funds provision that will preserve the spirit of Clean Elections while coloring inside the lines on the Millionaires Amendment decision. There are many alternatives, including the possibility of letting Clean Elections candidates raise additional small contributions that will then be matched by the state.It's disappointiing that a wrong-headed ruling from the Supreme Court is gumming up the works for Clean Elections in New Jersey, but given the great success of the program in 2007 there's high motivation to find a way to work around obstacles and get the program reauthorized, and expanded for 2009.