Lost in the political bellowing about Sen. Barack Obama’s rejection (or was it denouncement?) of public campaign financing was deserved recognition of the earthshaking impact that Internet fundraising has had.

Obama’s unprecedented fiscal success is attributable to the Internet’s easy facilitation of donation – a few clicks, and the proverbial check is in the e-mail.

But this success came at a cost to public financing as a policy. In repudiating public funds, Obama derided the federal program – which no presidential candidate has declined since the early 1970s – as broken.

Maine is a trailblazer in public financing for candidates. But its system is often scrutinized for loopholes and problems, proving clean elections are a work in progress. Today, a hearing in Augusta before the Maine Commission of Governmental Ethics and Elections Practices is scheduled to review more changes to the landmark law.

One deals with creating an “enhanced online contribution” system for gubernatorial candidates to collect qualifying contributions prior to receiving clean election funding. The contributions are fiscal collateral for public support.

Last year, the Legislature increased the necessary number of qualifying gubernatorial contributions from 2,500 to 3,250, essentially raising the qualifying bar for potential candidates. There was a twofold reason – increase funding for clean elections and weed out fly-by-night candidacies.

Funding was most important. In 2010, the next gubernatorial race is expected to cost approximately $4.9 million, money the clean elections program just doesn’t have. It’s hoping for a $4.4 million appropriation in 2009 to help cover the anticipated cost.

Unleashing the power of the Internet for clean elections is a no-brainer. Not only would this facilitate campaigns of potential gubernatorial candidates, but the medium’s proven success as a fundraiser should allow the state to raise its clean election stakes.

Successful clean election campaigns are going to cost money, but they are worth it. Few should argue the spirited 2006 campaign for governor, which featured three publicly funded candidates, was not worth the expense.

The continued solvency of the program, however, means increasing the share campaigns must collect upfront. By providing a comprehensive Internet fundraising program, the state can justify asking gubernatorial candidates for a bigger political down payment.

Or, even easier, the state can co-opt Obama’s campaign slogan … sort of like this: Can clean election candidates meet higher qualifications if allowed Internet fundraising?

Yes, they can.