Obama is getting public financing -- from more than a million donors.  Why should the taxpayers be paying for the campaign? His support is so broad-based that influence-buying just isn't a concern as it would be for a campaign based on large donors.  

And I'm sure his campaign will make these arguments and virtually no one would decide to not support him because he doesn't take taxpayer money for the general election campaign.

Settle down, Beavis.  

Point to me the statement from Obama where he pledged to abide by Public Financing for this election.  He did not.  He was not going to do so knowing 527s are out there waiting to tear at whichever candidate was elected.

Christ, man, this is exactly the kind of thing we want from our Democrats!  A refusal to bend over and take it when doing so gives significant advantage to the Republicans!  

McCain is screwed on financing his campaign.  Hell if this were Hillary, and even if Hillary HAD promised to strongly go with public financing, I'd back her decision not to.  

THINK OUTSIDE YOUR NARROW CANDIDATE-CHEERLEADING BOX FOR ONCE.  

The whole point of public financing is to reduce the influence of big money people in politics. Since Obama has already achieved that I would say that he kept his pledge...and didn't take my tax dollars to do it.

Obama is a genius!  

I am an Obama supporter and I have to admit I am wondering why this has been brought up now...without arguing for who pledged what...I wonder why?

Also - does anyone know if HRC has committed to Public Financing? If so, then this will represent a major policy difference between the two candidates.

Isn't John McCain already in violation of public financing laws?

Anyway, I do not want him opting into public financing.  He should not have checked 'yes' - 527s and spending by the national party make public financing meaningless.  Howard Dean has spent most of the Democrat's money on "party building" - which is good - but it means that he's going to have to run on his own, while John McCain is going to be getting a multi-million dollar assist from the RNC, as well as weirdly named groups like "Citizens for a Strong Democracy" that will pop up out of nowhere and run negative ads.

The point of the diary is that Obama is going back on his "pledge". Here is what Obama stated:

["In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."]

The question is whether America is going to trust a man who breaks his promises even before he's in a position of authority. It pretty much is a question of credibility and trust. My mother always told me, "never make promises that you can't keep." I doubt I am the only person who learned that lesson.