Yes, we support its passage even though it has notable limitations.
Its website (http://fairelectionsnow.org) describes the proposed Act this way: "The Fair Elections Now Act (S. 750 and H.R. 1404) was re-introduced in 2011 in the Senate by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and in the House of Representatives by Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Walter Jones, Jr. (R-N.C.), and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine). The bill would allow federal candidates to choose to run for office without relying on large contributions, big money bundlers, or donations from lobbyists, and would be freed from the constant fundraising in order to focus on what people in their communities want."
We think the formula for providing public campaign financing after candidates have raised a substantial number of small donations is a solid one. The limitations we see are (1) It applies to federal candidates only. (2) It does not prevent well-funded candidates from outspending their opponents by refusing to take public money - and money largely determines outcomes in recent years. (3) It doesn't bar independent Super PACS which, if you've paid attention to recent news and followed the Republican Presidential primaries, clearly can play an overwhelming role in determining outcome. (4) Crucially, as noted in our previous answer, it faces a current Supreme Court that has proven to be hostile to attempts by Congress or the states to legislate a way out of the campaign-money-buys-votes current system, as witness the Court's Citizens United decision in 2010.
By contrast, our goal is a Supreme Court-proof amendment that would change the system at all government levels, would bar PACs and Super-PACS, and would make it a certainty that, if passed, the thoughtful Fair Elections Act Now could not be decimated by our highest court.