That they’re not doing anything to change the way that elections are funded says a great deal about the influence of money and lobbying in Washington (and it’s worth mentioning that they were all elected under the current financing system, meaning that it worked for them even as they claim to despise it).

Still, some lawmakers have made campaign finance reform a priority, pushing a bill — the Fair Elections Now Act — that would allow congressional candidates to access public funds in exchange for disavowing large contributions from individuals and all contributions from lobbyists. And today they got a boost.

Thirty former lawmakers, from both sides of the aisle, are urging Congress to enact campaign finance reforms ASAP, arguing that the current system “impairs” the ability of lawmakers to tackle the grave and numerous problems facing the country.

“From our collective experience, fundraising is one of the worst parts of serving in public office, and it has only gotten worse since we served,” the lawmakers wrote in an open letter appearing in Roll Call.

The current campaign finance system serves no one well, and serves us all as a nation poorly. The hours spent raising money from narrow interests would be better applied to connecting with voters, building relationships across the aisle, seeking ideas from issue experts, and addressing the needs of the nation.

As it stands, many members are forced into a permanent “campaign” mindset. The currency of America’s capital city has become money, not ideas, and that hurts democracy in a fundamental way.

Among the signers were former Reps. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.), Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.) and Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.).

Sponsored by Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) and Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) in the Senate, and by Walter Jones (R-N.C.) and John Larson (D-Ct.) in the House, the Fair Elections Now Act aims to attract candidates who otherwise might not have the financial resources to launch a serious campaign for federal office.

Under the bill, candidates wishing to tap public funds would first have to prove viability by raising a minimum amount of cash from in-state donors, who could give no more than $100 each. Candidates meeting that state-specific threshold would then receive a lump sum for the primary election, and could raise additional funds from individual donors, again not to exceed $100. For every $1 raised in-state, the government would chip in $4.

Primary winners would receive another grant for the general election, again with the stipulation that additional donations couldn’t top $100, and again with the enticement of a four-to-one federal match for in-state contributions. The matching funds would stop flowing at a certain point, but candidates could continue to raise unlimited small donations from individuals.

The bill would also prohibit participating candidates from accepting any donations from political action committees, the groups organized by businesses and ideological groups to influence elections.

Still, supporters might not want to hold their breath for passage. Not only does the current political environment require 60 votes for anything at all to move through the Senate, but the recent Supreme Court ruling empowering corporations and unions to spend unlimited sums to influence elections puts even more pressure on incumbents to raise campaign cash. After all, it is an election year.

Former Gov. Thomas H. Kean, New Jersey Republican, and former Rep. Lee Hamilton, Indiana Democrat, said U.S. intelligence agencies should have been consulted before the bombing suspect, Nigerian national Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, was granted constitutional protections under U.S. law, known as Miranda rights, and initially stopped talking to investigators.

It doesn’t appear as if Kean and Hamilton actually object to Mirandizing Abdulmutallab, just the non-existent coordination between the FBI on scene and the intelligence community. Still, that might give some push to a forthcoming bill from Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) to compel such coordination. The director of national intelligence’s misstep last week continues to compound.

Miscik, you see, was head of intelligence analysis during the 2002 turmoil over Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction and non-existent ties to Al Qaeda, and according to the 2004 Senate intelligence committee report about what went wrong, she pretty much disgraced herself. When the administration insisted on an intelligence assessment of Saddam Hussein’s relationship to Al Qaeda, Miscik blocked the skeptics (who were later vindicated) within the CIA’s Mideast analytical directorate, and instructed the less-skeptical counterterrorism analysts to “stretch to the maximum the evidence you had.”

The good news is that Miscik initially ended up without an administration position. And as the pieces of the Obama administration have fallen into place, it’s remained true — until today. Because the administration just announced the members of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board. Miscik is on it. Not that that’s so bad.

Why? Because the board traditionally doesn’t really do much of anything. While the president can make it anything he wants, typically the board is called in to provide a broad overview of the intelligence community’s performance, rather than substantial or detailed work on pressing or even long-term intelligence issues. It’s a job that does little more than show respect for foreign policy mandarins and graybeards. Miscik might go on to a different administration job, but for now she’s effectively marginalized. If Obama wants real advise on intelligence, he’s going to ask John Brennan to step into the Oval. Nothing here changes that.

The other members of the board? Roel Campos, Lee Hamilton (former mentor to top Obama White House aide Ben Rhodes), Rita Hauser, Paul Kaminski, Ellen Laipson and Les Lyles. It’s chaired by two former senators, Chuck Hagel and David Boren.

Strategically, there are two broad and fundamental questions to be answered. First, how will our departure impact our regional and security interests over the next decade and longer? And second, is this type of war really the best use of American power and resources in today’s world?

Unfortunately, that’s the end of Hamilton’s op-ed, which, if anything, signifies that establishment foreign policy is starting to become comfortable throwing those questions out but isn’t yet comfortable offering answers. But still. Hamilton isn’t just any greybeard, he’s one President Obama respects and listens to, as one of Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, Ben Rhodes, worked for Hamilton for years. Hamilton endorsed Obama at a critical period in the primaries. Just before Obama’s inauguration, Hamilton hosted a dinner for him with a number of foreign-policy luminaries. Michael Cohen is right to see something changing.

On Wednesday morning, Richard Holbrooke, the administration’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, will be bringing his whole interagency crew to talk at the Center for American Progress. That should be a good tableau for presenting — and perhaps addressing — progressive agita over the state of the Afghanistan war.

Obviously I wasn’t at the meeting, and no one would tell Laura what was discussed. But if Obama was trying to figure out what to do about Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India; what’s in America’s interest; and what’s in line with America’s values — well, then, those are four people it makes sense to break bread with.