The paper Roll Call in an editorial on Oct. 28 wisely called for reform of the current method of public financing of the presidential election. It reports (subscription required) on what it calls “super donors” that bundle donations to candidates and use party victory funds to bust through the combined $4,600 individual contribution limits for the primary and general election.  “Does anyone think that these super donors won’t have special access and influence in the new administration?” Roll Call asks.  The next Congress should also look at the way we elect members to the U.S. House and Senate because of the growing influence of large donors.  Consider these figures from the nonpartisan Campaign Finance Institute. The average candidate for the U.S. House in the 2008 election cycle had received 35 percent of his donations by the end of March from individuals giving $1,000 or more, while contributions of $200 or less accounted for 10 percent of donations. In the election cycle of 2000 $1,000 contributions accounted for 31 percent of donations and under-$200 contributions accounted for 15 percent.  In the U.S. Senate there’s been a similar drop in small donations and rise in large contributions in the last eight years.  The next Congress should consider the Clean Elections systems where candidates get a set number of modest donations—usually five dollars—from people in their community in order to qualify for public campaign money. Once qualified, the Clean Elections candidate adheres to strict spending limits and stops accepting private contributions. That means the donation from the teacher, factory worker or coffee barista is as important as the one from the corporate CEO.