So here we are, at the end of a presidential election that cost close to $1 billion; a slate of State Senate races that cost more than $40 million;and local Congressional races that cost at least $2 million each - save the low-key race run by Democrat Louise Slaughter and Republican David Crimmen.

Elections keep getting more expensive and, to be competitive, candidates often turn to large donors for campaign cash. It's not a stretch, then, to suspect that those donors - often special interests - may want something from the candidates in return.

With a major election behind us, now is the time to push for campaign-finance reform, says Susan Lerner, executive director of Common Cause/NY, a nonpartisan government reform group. A well-funded, well-operated public financing system helps make politicians more responsive to the people they represent, she says.

A good starting point, says Lerner, is the financing system used in New York City. Candidates who agree to participate in the system are eligible for matching funds at a six-to-one ratio on private contributions up to $175. And there are strict limits on contributions from special interests and anyone doing business with the city.

"The narrative that you're encouraging candidates to really develop is ‘I'm the representative of the people. The people are funding my election, not the special interests,'" Lerner says.

Common Cause/NY and other good-government groups have developed a state-level Pledge for Change to encourage specific state government reforms such as campaign finance and nonpartisan redistricting. The Rochester-area candidates who signed on to the pledge were: Democratic State Assembly challenger David Garretson, Republican Assembly challengers Jeffrey Morrow and David Bonacchi, and Democratic State Senate challengers Paloma Capanna, Rick Dollinger, and David Nachbar. The only incumbent to sign was Democratic Assembly member Joe Morelle.

Lerner talked with City about the details and advantages of publicly financed campaigns, as well as the need for state government reform. The following is an edited version of that interview.

CITY: Public financing seems like a tough sell to the public.

Lerner: Once the public actually becomes familiar with it and they understand how it works, it's incredibly popular. In Arizona, its popularity ratings are, like, 60-70 percent for people who know the system exists. It's that initial change that's tough. One of the reasons why the North Carolina model is such a good one is that they started in offices that made inherent sense to the public. People got familiar with it. They liked the way it worked; they wanted to expand it.

Where does the money come from for a public system?

There are a lot of different ways to fund public funding of elections. In Arizona, they fund their elections system with a surcharge on civil and criminal penalties. So, for instance, if you are a polluter and you're sued for that pollution and you're assessed a fine, the fine is increased by 10 percent. That goes into the clean elections fund.

In North Carolina, where they provide public funding for their judicial races, they do it with a tax check-off. It's been quite successful there.

Did Barack Obama set a bad example by not taking public financing?

Obama - even though he, in this particular situation, declined the public money - he really has a track record of being a supporter of public funding of elections. The presidential system really is broken. One of the things that's interesting about the working systems - Arizona's a pretty good example and New York City is an excellent example - is that they need adjustment. Things change, and more than just the cost of living.

New York City, when it started its public funding system, had a one-to-one match. In the 20 years that they've had public funding, it's moved from a one-to-one match to a four-to-one match to a six-to-one match. So it's become more attractive, and other aspects of the system have been adjusted to make it keep up with political reality. The presidential system has stayed completely static. The landscape has changed.

If indeed Obama's elected, all of us are going to expect him to be a very early and strong advocate for fixing the presidential system so that it provides more money, so that it works better. If you have a public funding system that does not allow candidates to run an effective campaign, you don't have a public funding system.

The Supreme Court has ruled against the idea of mandatory public financing of elections based largely on the First Amendment. How do you balance free speech and money?

I think that the equation of money and speech rights has led us down a path that is not positive. That's certainly not anything our Founding Fathers anticipated and I think is ultimately uncomfortable for the vast majority of people who know that they're never going to have enough money to buy a gigantic megaphone to scream back. Public funding is about accumulating enough money to ensure that all viewpoints actually are heard.

We believe in a marketplace of ideas here in America, but we're not doing anything to ensure that the American voter really gets a full, vigorous marketplace of ideas. In a situation where there are some people who fortune has smiled on who can buy a much larger megaphone, I think either we've got to say there are decibel limits on your volume or sound system, or else we've got to say that we'll bring everybody else up to the same level so that the voter can be educated. That's what the whole process is about.

How does public financing help when there's a candidate who can raise crazy amounts of money or is wealthy enough to self-fund a campaign?

The way it works in places where it's been going on for a while is - and this is something that happened in the Maine Republican gubernatorial primary in the 2006 election cycle - you had a moderate Republican who was running with public money, you had a conservative Republican who was running with public money, and you had a conservative Republican who would not take the public money and used his own personal fortune. The fact that the third one refused to take the public money became the central issue in the campaign: Why wasn't he taking the public money?

The conventionally funded candidate lost and the Republican nominee was the conservative, publicly funded candidate.

Election districts also need to be addressed. How do you get Albany to engage in redistricting reform?

I think it's got to come from the districts. It's not going to happen spontaneously in Albany no matter how many well-connected, hopefully thoughtful groups like mine talk to the legislators. We've been talking for a long time and that's why we developed the Pledge for Change, which is to get out in the districts and have these topics be a topic of dialogue and conversation. Because this isn't just a campaign for the election; these are our legislative priorities for the next two years.

The reason they're able to continue on the way they're continuing on is that they're not getting criticized and they're not getting a lot of pressure.