“At the beginning of the primary season a year ago, both John McCain and Barack Obama indicated that they would accept public financing for their general election campaigns if the opposition candidate agreed to do the same. Now that it appears possible that the two of them will indeed be the nominees, McCain's campaign has repeated its pledge with a reminder about the one Obama made. The federal financing is expected to total about $85 million. As point of reference, Bush and Kerry both spent well over $200 million four years ago.

Question for all Obama supporters: Knowing that it would entail giving up a fund-raising advantage, would you like to see Obama accept public financing?”

-Question posed by an anonymous person

MY RESPONSE:  

I am not quite sure it is the strategically best move. He has great private fundraising potential, but who knows what fallout there would be if he denies public financing.

Ok, there are at least two moral dilemmas here: taking public financing is seen as good and going back on one's word is seen as bad. I say Obama should not take public financing because he has more to lose if he does so. While there will be political costs for denying public funding when he and McCain agreed to it before their chances looked realistic, he can make up for those costs by the gains of having the private money, which would be significantly larger than McCain's. His broad base of donors is one of the reasons he was able to take on the Clinton machine and why he has been able to pull ahead (though it's not over yet). For that reason, because his base of supporters is so large, I have no problem with him backing off from his original offer to McCain because his campaign has proved that corporate special interests are not the only ones having a say in this election. So, one moral dilemma is averted for another.

If he backs out of the deal with McCain, then he looks like a flip-flopper, or some other term that the Republicans will try to smack on him. He'll be framed as not only backing out on the deal but on a deal that would have made the process fairer. I happen to think that the good that will come out of an Obama Presidency outweighs the moral dilemmas of public financing and changing his mind. I never thought changing one's mind is a moral dilemma in itself, but the consequences of changing one's mind are what cause the dilemma. In this case, I think Obama re-evaluates the deal in light of the new information (him being the nominee and being backed by a huge donor base) and should come to the conclusion that he can maximize good by becoming President.

That all being said, I think Obama is a stand-up guy and so I have no idea what he'll do. The question is, does he have a little Machiavelli in him? If he gets the nomination, we'll see how he approaches this. I just can't imagine him turning his back on the huge donor base. It's tough to picture at least because after all this is politics. …In fact, in light of the previous sentence, I would say there is no way in hell he will take public financing. There has to be some Machiavelli in him.