There is money in politics. And the city of Los Angeles is looking into ways to make that reality more fair for local candidates.

To help level the playing field for candidates vying for City Council, mayoral, controller and city attorney seats, the City Ethics Commission offers public “matching funds” as an alternative to asking private sources for money to run a campaign. That pot of funds has grown to $16 million.

To receive those dollar, however, candidates need to demonstrate that they are engaging with and have support from voters and donors who are everyday Angelenos. The goal: reduce the amount of time candidates spend raising money, so that they can put more energy into connecting with voters.

But the requirements of the program have made it difficult for some to qualify for the funds – including for less-established candidates who may need the extra assistance the most.

To help remedy that, city ethics officials are recommending changes intended to remove some of the barriers and increase the amount of public dollars that candidates can access. The Los Angeles City Ethics Commission on Tuesday advanced the proposed amendments to the City Council.

City Ethics Commission President Serena Oberstein said the proposals came out of discussions with groups pushing to reduce the role of hefty private donations in elections, especially from wealthy sources, as well as discussions with treasurers and lawyers who on campaigns.

Those groups and individuals expressed concern that the matching fund program’s requirements are “somewhat cumbersome,” she said, so the goal of the commission was to “streamline the process and make it more accessible.”

“After eight months of conversations, I feel like we’ve made a lot of progress in working toward a more accessible and open opportunity for a field of people to run for office,” Oberstein said.

Some of the major proposals would give candidates more money to work with.

One proposal would raise the caps on the overall amount of matching funds that a candidate can receive. For example, in primary elections, each City Council candidate could qualify for up to $151,000, which is up from the current $100,000, while each mayoral candidate could receive as much as $1 million in public dollars, up from the current $667,000.

Another proposal: The matching rate would be changed so that for every private dollar that is raised from each donor, the candidate would receive six times that amount in public dollars. The current matching ratio starts at 1:1 (but can go higher when a candidate collects more signatures).

Candidates are allowed to begin fundraising for the 2020 primary election on Sept. 3, so the sooner any changes are approved, the sooner public financing can play its role, Oberstein said.

The 2020 primary election is also anticipated to transform the fund-raising landscape for local candidates. Los Angeles voters in 2015 decided to change a long-held practice of holding city elections in odd-numbered years, switching to even-numbered years to align with state, congressional and presidential races.

While that change could mean more voters will be going to the polls in municipal races, city ethics officials say it could prove tough for local city candidates, including lesser known ones, who will be competing with state and federal election candidates for campaign donations.

Oberstein said that she hopes the proposed 6:1 matching rate “will ease a lot of the burdens across the board,” if approved by city leaders.

The proposed matching fund changes are being closely watched by local groups interested in seeing serious challenges mounted against established or wealthier candidates in Los Angeles, and that view additional public funding as the leg up needed by candidates with fewer political ties and connections.

“For grassroots challengers without personal wealth, utilizing the matching funds program is essential to a viable campaign,” said Rob Quan, a member of UnrigLA.

He described the group as a coalition that is made up of “organizations and activists working toward a more representative government in L.A.”

Quan said the set of changes advanced by the commission “would drastically improve our public financing system, and empower grassroots candidates as well as small donors,” but he also expressed reservations that the proposals do not go far enough in reducing the power of large donors.