A number of editorial boards have written recently on the need to reform the presidential public financing system. The impetus has been the double whammy news that Sen. Barack Obama raised about $150 million in September alone and the report from the Center for Responsive Politics that the presidential race will cost about $2.4 billion.  In an editorial today The New York Times decried the sums spent, the expanded use of joint state and national fund-raising committees that allow wealthy donors to exceed contribution limits, and the lack of transparency in contributions sent over the Internet. See “Now, the $2 Billion Campaign.”  The Times concludes with a call for the next administration to clean up the system. While they are at it, the next president and Congress should address the Congressional campaign system.  Candidates will spend more than $2.5 billion this election cycle, CRP reports. And these candidates use the same techniques of bundling and fund-raising committees to get around contribution limits.  The alternative is a system called Clean Elections. Candidates running a Clean Elections campaign must 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 is as important as the one from the corporate CEO.  The bipartisan Fair Elections Now Act has been introduced in the Senate by Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and in the House by Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) and Rep. Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.C.)  This bill would implement a Clean Elections-style campaign to Congress.That's a reform that should be discussed.