The Columbian in Washington argues that public financing of elections isn't necessary -- all we need is better disclosure of contributions to campaigns. While the push for better disclosure requirements is well taken, the editorial misses some important points about the benefits of public financing.

First, while disclosure may do something to raise awareness of an perhaps combat the excessive influence of certain well-heeled special interests who plump campaign coffers, it will do nothing to encourage the participation of average voters who are often shut out as a result of the current campaign finance environment. A public financing program encourages candidates to seek out community support regardless of income level via collected small-dollar qualifying contributions in order to receive public funds. Until we enable candidates to run for office without having to devote outsized time and attention to the wealthiest donors, we'll still see iniquities in public policy that reflect this distortion.

Second, the article assumes public financing is an incumbent-protection system and that's hardly the case. Public financing actually increases the number of people able and willing to run for office which means more incumbents get challenged. By contrast, in elections where public financing is not an option incumbents have an enormous fundraising advantage -- and the inability to raise money against that advantage is what keeps a lot of aspiring public servants from running for office.