In recent weeks, Presidential public financing has dominated the campaign reporting news cycle.  The frontrunner candidates have launched a series of accusations at each other and there have been a muddle of contingent promises to use (or not use) public financing come the general election.

But lost in this has been a discussion about why Presidential public financing was created in the first place—to level the playing field for candidates, increase access for less wealthy candidates, and improve the perception of integrity in the process—and why the current system fails to meet many of these goals (and thus needs updating).

Instead, the conversation has become another casualty of the campaign spin machines.

The problems of money unduly influencing our democratic process go well beyond the Presidential general election and the strategic campaign decisions (based largely on fundraising coffers) any eventual nominee will make when deciding whether to opt into public financing this year. Indeed, money’s corrosive influence affects every level of government, from the White House to the state house. It’s a systemic problem that needs a systemic solution:  namely “Voter-Owned Elections” reform that gives candidates who prove community support and agree to spending limits a full public grant to run their campaign.

The good news is that there’s renewed momentum for this kind of reform all over the country.

A bill called the “Fair Elections Now Act,” which would provide full public financing for Congressional candidates, will be considered in Congress this year. The legislation would go a long way toward transforming the way Congress does business by reducing the power of PAC-backed lobbyists to wield skewed influence. And it would make Congress more accountable to the public by reducing the need to constantly be fundraising for the next election cycle.  The bill should be a central demand of progressives this year, and a question asked of all the Presidential candidates.  (For the record, Obama and Clinton support the legislation; McCain does not).

Another bill that will likely be taken up this year would overhaul the Presidential public financing system. The current election primary season has shown us why the system is in need of restructuring:  it does not provide enough money, does not end the “wealth primary” test for viability, and does not end the reliance on big donors (despite the growth of small donors, overall, 80% of money still comes from large donations).

The proposed reforms would make the program more like the full public financing programs found at the state-level by better leveraging the power of small donors, providing a competitive amount of money in both the primary and general elections earlier on, and creating a “matching fund” program if candidates are outspent by privately financed candidates.  This proposal should be approved before the next Presidential election, so we can avoid much of the moneyed frenzy that’s plagued this year’s race.

Finally, positive Voter-Owned Elections reforms are being enacted all over the country at the state-level. Arizona, Connecticut, and Maine now offer full public financing for all state-level offices and North Carolina, New Mexico, and New Jersey offer the option for some. And the programs have seen remarkable results:  reducing the role of moneyed interests in the election process, opening up government to average citizens, and allowing candidates to run grassroots campaigns in the retail politics tradition.

But unfortunately the current discussion about Presidential public financing—with its petty attacks, cynical calculations, and dripping sanctimony—is not moving us in the direction of these needed reforms.

This is a time for asking bigger questions about our democracy, about the difference between private and public interests, about the purpose of government, and the nature of “one person, one vote.”

Let’s hope that the opportunity to discuss the need for a comprehensive system of Voter-Owned Elections for the President, Congress, and state legislatures does not get lost in the short-term ad hominem attacks. And that instead, this election cycle—with its marathon-length and record fundraising—can provide the catalyst needed to transform the democratic possibilities we deserve into democratic realities. 

Chase Foster is the Coordinator of North Carolina Voters for Clean Elections