The next election frenzy hasn't begun in earnest in the public eye, but behind closed (and gilded) doors, the race for campaign cash is on and as these two articles describe.

Last week saw a flurry of campaign finance activity on the Philadelphia City Council surrounding a proposal by Councilor Jim Kenney to do away with campaign contribution limits. Kenney eventually pulled this proposal and others from consideration, a move the Philadelphia Inquirer praises while recommending that Kenney's proposal for public financing for municipal elections be given consideration in due time.

Embattled Rep. John Doolittle(R-CA) is trying to get back on the good side of his constituents after barely keeping his seat in the 2006 mid-term elections. Trying to put his ties to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, and allegations of unethical fundraising activity behind him, he's promising greater accountability, and more attention to constituents. A fine gesture, but can he be for real?

The Republican is looking for a little more disclosure in the realm of campaign finance, particularly in this brave new world of bundling where super-fundraisers give the max donation to a candidate and find, say, a hundred friends willing to do the same, yet don't need to disclose anything beyond their individual gift.

$1,000,000,000. That's how much the next presidential race is going to cost, when all is said and done. A billion bucks will be collected from a small group of the nation's wealthiest and most powerful who will come knocking at the door before the last inauguration balloon hits the floor looking for a return on their dollar. It will be, as Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) says: "ridiculous."

There's no question: if we want a Congress that works for us full time, we need full public financing of elections. Further evidence comes in the form of the article from today's Roll Call (sub. required) indicating that the longer work week proposed for Congress this year will mean more and more fundraisers to satisfy the need for campaign cash.

From the article:

Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) who narrowly won re-election last month amid growing allegations of his ties to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff, is writing a lot of checks to a law firm that handles campaign finance cases - $44,138 in all, and probably not the last of it.

The Washington Post is calling it an "invisible primary" - the lead-up to the 2008 presidential race in which the competitive candidates will be chosen on the basis of how much early money they can bring in from a small, elite circle of wealthy power players. You can't write a check for $2,000 and promise 100 friends who can do the same? Then your opinion means nothing.

Newt Gingrich has an interesting approach to widespread congressional scandal and voter dissatisfaction: roll back existing campaign finance reforms. His argument, defeatist at best, seems to suggest that since existing regulations haven't stemmed the tide of money, they should be overturned. What about pursuing an alternative that makes elections about more than money...like Clean Elections?

Time magazine's Massimo Calabresi speculates on the potential lobbying reforms that may come about when Democrats take control of Congress in January. Balancing campaign promises to clean up Washington against a newly favorable environment on the K Street lobbying corridor, what changes will Democrats bring?