The Philadelphia Inquirer isn't willing to let presidential public financing go down without a fight, imploring the 2008 contenders to opt into the system for the general election to put the skids on the anticipated $1 billion election pricetag -- and the parade of articles that treat money as the proxy for viability in the race.

Well, well. Sen. Mitch McConnell (aka Big Money Mitch) perhaps the most ardent opponent of any kind of campaign finance reform in Congress is out there breaking fundraising records for his 2008 re-election bid. Eighteen months out from election day and he's already got $6 million in his campaign war chest -- it's good to have a Rolodex full of well-heeled donor friends. In response, Public Campaign Action Fund's David Donnelly issued this statement:

For shear number of alarming quotes, it'd be hard to beat this New York Times article on presidential hopeful Mitt Romney's fundraising operation. Romney is looking to leverage the deep pockets of a few major contributors into the office on 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The first quarter campaign finance disclosures from the Presidential field draws a trio of critical editorials on the subject of the "wealth primary" from The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, and the The New York Times. All pose the essential question in one form or other: how much damage is this fund-race doing to our elections, and our elected officials?