Excellent post. A key point is that unrestrained 527 spending really undercuts the whole notion of public financing. As much as I would like to see it happen, there seems to be no way to restrict spending money by "independent" groups on "free speech" that would pass muster with SCOTUS. Obama needs to emphasize this when he rejects public financing.

the repubs will do what it takes to win

dems should be able to as well

this is especially true since all of obama's money comes from small donors

The unfortunate fact is that Senator Obama is already on record saying that he would use public funding. That's going to be something that Senator McCain can bring up again and again if he doesn't; that Senator Obama can't be taken at his word.

Perhaps the advantage of not having a set spending limit would overcome this, but having a concrete example of Obama saying one thing and doing another would be very powerful, and it's very easy to understand (unlike McCain's loan shenanigans).

I think McCain has already provided an out for Obama on this issue by basically giving the FEC the middle finger regarding his own attempt to withdraw from public financing for the primary. If McCain is not willing to recognize the authority of the FEC in this matter, why should Obama trust that he will during a general election?

Whatever Obama would lose through spending limits, he would make up for in votes from people who respected his integrity. If Obama has hope for real change...if his campaign is really about us and not him...he will find a creative way to resolve this.

I could only stomach Obama rejecting spending limits if the race would be unfair otherwise. And that move would have to come with a commitment to mobilize voters to push through full public financing for all future congressional and presidential elections.

"The best part of Obama's fund raising under the McCain-Feingold system: it doesn't cost taxpayers a dime."

You must be kidding. Not all of Obama's support comes from small donors, so if history is any indication, the large donations are going to cost the taxpayers dearly. Obama said this in Des Moines: 'The argument is not that I'm pristine, because I'm swimming in the same muddy water, ... The argument is that I know it's muddy and I want to clean it up."

Do you think billions of our taxpayer dollars go to earmarks, oil and other subsidies because that's what small donors want? Why do you supposed Americans pay the highest drug prices in the world? To what do you attribute an unnecessary, trillion-dollar+ war?

If the majority of American voices were not drowned out by big donors, those trillions of taxpayer dollars would be used for things all Americans can agree should be done, like better education, renewable energy, reasonable healthcare, a safe infrastructure, border security, etc.

As Obama says, doing the same thing and expecting a different result is not so smart.

"Before McCain touts his record as a campaign finance reformer, he should first answer questions about his claims of being a fiscal conservative. As a fiscal conservative, how can McCain call for taxpayers to spend $170 million for a public financing system when the nation faces record deficits?"

It IS conservative to spend 170 million to save the taxpayers trillions.

"Finally, McCain should have to answer this: if McCain feels so strongly about general election spending limits, why didn't he mandate them in McCain-Feingold? "

It's no stretch to assume the donors didn't want the spending limits included and that most campaign finance "reform" laws are filled with loopholes before they ever hit the books. The Congress that passed McCain-Feingold is filled with people who do not lead; they are merely experts at doing exactly as they are told by the largest donors.

The people have to get together to solve this problem and the answer is not to throw more money down the hole.

some good points, but I think the fiscal conservative argument is a bad one -- it basically is saying that public financing is a waste of taxpayer money. Not so good if you ever want to revive such a plan, in any form.

Who is John McCain to talk to anyone about flip-flopping? If I'm Obama, I don't try to pretend I meant anything other than I did--at the time, 1,000,000 small donors ago, public financing sounded like the best way to insure that special interests would be kept out of the picture. Noone had ever experienced a presidential campaign actually funded by the people instead of the special interests. Well now we have--and that changes everything. It's politics as usual to brand people as flip-floppers. In the world most of us live in--the world of business--leaders who adapt with the times are widely admired, and those who stick with the same strategies and policies no matter what aren't just called "stubborn" (which has an admirable quality), they're out of a job. John McCain has "flip-flopped" on any number of issues in order to win the nomination of his party. McCain once considered radical right wing religious leaders like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell--who claimed 9-11 was America's punishment for sinful behavior--to be "agents of intolerance." Now he kisses their rings. Tax cuts for the wealthy: he was once against them, thought they were fiscally irresponsible, especially in a time of war, but then decided to support them to curry favor with his party. Now we have $300 billion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see--and McCain wants to attack Obama over a change in *campaign tactics?* Please.

The question isn't so much about Obama taking public financing - strateically, its probably best for him.

The question is about him keeping his word, when he is running as a "new type of politician". He has said pretty definitively in the past, that he thought if his opponent took public financing, he would as well. Now that that pledge looks a bit inconvenient, he's backing off it. What happens after he is elected with the dozen other campaign pledges - middle class taxes, health care mandates, Iraqi withdrawl - that are also a bit "inconvenient" to follow.

The whole "save the taxpayer money" argument is bunk - he could still abide by a $85 million limit raised from private donations, and honor his pledge while still saving the taxpayer's money.

If you are an Obama supporter, on the thought that things will be different up there, that he'll work together with both parties to govern in the national interest, then it will be somewhat sad to watch you faces drop when the luster comes off.... and this broken pledge, the political doublespeak behind it, is the first bit of tarnish..