Hmm ok this is a doozy...where to start.

First off, the public election funds are available only for the federal election. There is no debate about fundraising for the primaries. That is a separate system of public funding that has already been bypassed by all the candidates. (McCain applied for matching public funds last August, but that's a whole different story).

The way the federal system is set up, is that there is a pool of money from taxpayers dollars and each individual candidate can choose to either accept the "free" money ($85 Million per candidate) from the federal government, or to fundraise on their own. If they accept the federal stipend, they are barred from any private fundraising.

The traditional advantages of the federal stipend are that it eliminates the cries of "special interest fundraising" by the candidate, since they wouldn't be allowed to accept any money from anyone... the disadvantage, of course, is that it limits the candidate to the $85 mil total in a time where candidates are raising much more than that PER WEEK from private sources.

A flaw of the federal stipend system is that it is completely voluntary on an individual basis for all candidates. Thus, any candidate who chooses to "take the high road" will inevitably be shooting themselves in the foot if their opponent chooses to raise private funds (which would undoubtedly result in a MUCH larger war chest).

Over a year ago, Obama was championing the need for a level playing field, and he suggested that all candidates commit to using public funding should they get the election. This was met with fierce resistence and remarks that he was being naive, from Edwards and particularly Clinton. Knowing that the plan would only work if the Republican nominee was on board, he asked the FEC if he could raise private funds in anticipation of the federal election, but choose later to opt for the public money. They agreed to that, and so he has been raising private money for that. To date, he has not technically committed himself to spending limits in the general election, although his track record shows that he at least appears willing. (Maybe his unreal fundraising ability of late has changed his mind?)

Recently, both Clinton and McCain have hit him hard on his refusal to lock himself into that commitment. The comments from Clinton are laughable, though...because she hasn't committed herself to it either. (And additionally, since it only applies in the general election, her attacking him on that issue seems like an assumption that he will be the Democratic nominee...).

McCain claims to have committed to public funding in the general election (this raises the question: what exactly defines "committed"?). He claims that Obama signed a commitment a year ago when he answered a questionnaire with one of the answers affirming that he would accept the public money limits. Now, McCain is criticizing the fact that Obama seems uncertain still about which choice he will make, calling his actions "Washington doublespeak", and "flip flopping" and all those other words the politicians use.

"Obama wrote [last week] that if he is the Democratic nominee he "will aggressively pursue" a policy with his opponent for a "publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits," but made clear that he thinks a new agreement is needed." - Quoted from source below.

"At the news conference here, McCain could not specifically point to the document he said Obama signed, saying it was with a "public-interest group," presumably the Midwest Democracy Network." - Quoted from source below.


Here are the two most relevant articles I could find:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/20/mccain_criticizes_obama_on_fin.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8560.html


As for my personal opinion, I think that this is a step in the right direction, albeit an understandably cautious one. Without assurance that the other side will limit their funds to public money, a candidate is committing suicide to limit themself. It's a big game of chicken. Either way, though, the general election fund rules only apply after the parties' conventions (late august for dems and early sept for reps.), so the time period in question in a mere 2 months.

Should be interesting to see how it turns out.