What does he do? Keep his word, or make himself a liar to cash in?

A year ago, at the beginning of his bid to secure the clean-up-Washington mantle, Barack Obama made a pact with John McCain that, if the two were to be their party’s nominees, each would accept public financing for the general election. That agreement sounded far-fetched: At the time, McCain was in the middle of his high-profile free-fall in the polls, while Obama trailed Hillary Clinton by wide margins in virtually every poll.

Now, McCain is virtually the nominee-in-waiting. By his campaign’s count, he has already surpassed the necessary threshold of delegates needed to win the GOP convention in St. Paul. Obama, too, is close to winning his side. He has Clinton against a wall; she needs wins in key states of Ohio and Texas in order to keep her campaign afloat. The scenario that the two candidates who most talk about reforming Washington will actually face each other in November looks more than possible, it looks probable. . . .

Obama faces two choices: First, he can take public financing, save some face now and open himself to new, stronger attacks on his electability from Clinton while providing McCain an even playing field. Second, he can back out and take a few weeks of assault from McCain and Clinton for going back on his word.

While financing a campaign is an issue few voters care about, choosing the second scenario could potentially cost him votes in a primary election. Choosing the first could risk the general election itself by giving McCain a chance Obama doesn’t have to provide. The question cynics in his campaign have to answer: Do they really want to change the way politics works, or do they really want to win?

From a tactical standpoint, I think Obama would be better off to keep his word.  He’d avoid the flak he’d get for being a promise-breaker, and given the widespread support he’s already getting from the left I’m not sure how much of a fund raising advantage he really needs.

Personally, though, I think public financing for elections is pretty silly.  Political contributions are an extension of political speech.  One way Americans have to show their support for a particular candidate is to send that candidate some money, but public funding obfuscates that.

I think all campaign fund raising should be as transparent as possible with every single contribution (even those small than $200, I’m looking at you Senator Obama) being disclosed entirely, but beyond that I don’t think there should be any limit in the amount of money a candidate can receive nor do I think tax dollars should be spent on elections.

As long as its clear where the money a candidate is running on is coming from, why limit it in any way?