Newspapers 

"[T]he only way to inject substantially more competition into the process is through public financing. It is time for Governor Spitzer and legislators to look at the way other states — including Maine, Arizona and Connecticut — have managed to bring public money into campaigns. Instead of every dollar coming with a request for a special interest favor, these systems provide public dollars aimed at encouraging candidates to work for the public interest."

New York Times, April 29, 2007

"Big contributors, often representing special interests, expect access and influence in return for their money. Citizens who can't write big checks can't compete. ... a system that encourages congressional candidates to pay more attention to the concerns of ordinary voters than the cold hard cash of special interests would be a wise."

Orlando Sentinel, April 23, 2007

"Yes, the proposal would cost us all some money. But if we got a Congress that is more responsive to the voters, less busy chasing dollars and less reliant on special interests, the cost would be worth it."

Chicago Sun-Times, March 26, 2007

"In this way, candidates who run under Fair Elections would be beholden to no special interest other than the people who elect them, and would be able, once in office, to drive the money-changers out of their office, and out of our democracy. Sens. Specter and Durbin deserve praise for helping to bring us one step closer to truly clean and fair elections."

Philadelphia Daily News, March 23, 2007

"Beyond reducing the influence of special interests, this system could give a real shot at election to candidates who can't run under the current dialing-for-dollars system, and it could let incumbents spend more time with constituents, instead of begging endlessly for contributions."
Newsday, February 10, 2007

"If the Democrats really want to "drain the swamps" in Washington and Sacramento, then they need to include "clean money" on their 2007 agenda."
San Francisco Chronicle, December 17, 2006

"Publicly financed campaigns are the answer. They can lead to more candidates, more competitive races and to campaigns focusing on the concerns of individual voters, not special interests."
Winston-Salem Journal, November 8, 2006

"In the long run, this public funding costs taxpayers far less than the pay-to-play status quo, where big donors get big rewards in the form of government contracts, grants and regulatory relief."
Philadelphia Inquirer, September 13, 2006

"This system has the beauty of promoting more speech, not less, and of offering voters candidates who are unfettered by private donations. The availability of public money also encourages newcomers to enter races, broadening the field beyond party regulars."
USA Today, June 27, 2006

"Congress has taken a fling at reform before. In the mid-1990s, amid much fanfare, it banned travel paid for by private groups, but it left a loophole big enough for fact-finding trips. The House banned gifts from lobbyists, then in 1999 snuck gifts less than $50 back in and failed to enforce the new limit. A more obvious route to reform would be public financing of campaigns. That could remove the best excuse for accepting money. It also could draw more candidates who find fundraising distasteful.”
USA Today, January 18, 2006

“The extraordinary reform [in Connecticut] not only takes aim at the corrosive power of special interest money, but also creates the first statewide system set up by a legislature to provide voluntary public financing of campaigns.”
New York Times, December 2, 2005

“Most of the so-called reforms offered in Congress to date would not change the stark facts that political campaigns are expensive and that, as long as they are privately funded, members will become indebted to donors. The answer is simple: public financing of congressional campaigns. If the taxpayers are the donors, then the members’ indebtedness runs exactly where it should: to their constituents. Senators and representatives would no longer be under pressure to betray the voters in their districts to satisfy the antithetical interests of their funders. The voters and funders would be one and the same. Anyone with experience in Washington knows that the only long-term solution is public financing.”

Boston Globe, February 3, 2006

"In junior high, we had a better idea. If you ran for student council, they gave you three pieces of construction paper and some magic markers. You made your posters. You hung them on the walls. That was it for campaign finance.

"Elementary as it seems, this model should be what all of us -- including our politicians -- are shooting for. Everyone gets the same access. Everyone spends the same money. And the best candidates win with their platforms -- not with the TV time they can buy."
Mitch Albom, Detroit Free Press, "Reform foes fighting only for themselves," March 24, 2002

"Cleanly financed elections that bring more citizens into the political process as candidates, donors and organizers are vital to maintaining the health of American democracy. Over the long run, such a system will produce better choices for all. Massachusetts should light the way."
New York Times, "Cleaning Up Massachusetts Politics," January 31, 2002