Some thoughts on the article in today's NYT about the McCain/Obama public financing question.

First, you can obviously understand Obama's reticence in signing up for public matching funds during the general election because he's raised about a gazillion dollars. So has Clinton for that matter.

As for Obama's claim that he has created a parallel public financing system, that's kind of a stretch. The idea of public financing is to create a SYSTEM that builds in incentives for candidates to raise money from lots of small contributions, like Obama has, by matching small donations with, say, a 3-1 match.

As for McCain, his campaign takes delight in blasting Obama for hinting that he is not taking public financing even though he said he would. But if you read the rest of the article, McCain's people say he is not committed to it either. He may not have said explicitly that he would take public financing during the general election, but one would certainly hope that he would considering how much mileage he is getting out of his self-styled identity as a reformer (aka maverick).

If you look at the breakdown of contributions to each of the leading presidential candidates, it is striking how top-heavy Hillary's campaign fundraising is compared to both Obama and McCain.

According to the Center for Responsive Politics, one-third of the contributions to Clinton (7,411 contributions) have come from donors who gave the maximum amount allowed by law - $4,600. This is compared to just 10 percent for Obama and 9 percent for McCain.

By contrast, McCain and Obama's percentage of contributions from donors who gave $200 or less is 22 percent and 26 percent, respectively. Hilary clocks in with only 12 percent of contributions coming from donors who gave less than $200.

And just as a point of reference, only 0.16 percent of adults in the U.S. give more than $200 in political donations in a given election cycle, so we are already talking about a relatively small group here.

It's official --Last Thursday, the FEC, at the request of Sen. Barack Obama, ruled that the 2008 presidential hopefuls can legally reserve the option of returning private donations in return for public funds upon winning their party's nomination. What began as an intriguing, eye brow-raising request has turned into a decision that may dramatically shape the fundraising race for the presidency. And even though this decision was made at the prompting of Sen. Obama, it will undoubtedly affect the fundraising choices of every one of the presidential candidates.

Yesterday, Common Cause Maine's Jon Bartholomew stood with US Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) to talk about the House Democrats new ethics rules being voted on today.  It's a good package, but it will ultimately fail without enforcement, as similar rules enacted in 1995 failed.  Today, in the WaPo, Sen. Barack Obama writes about the key to ethics reform, an independent commission to make sure Congress follows its own ethics rules. And the NY Times chimes in with its own pitch for independent oversight of congressional ethics.  Here's some excerpts:

Senator Obama in the Post:

And, the NY Times: Paramount is the need to create an independent office for ethics enforcement to end the clubbiness that more often than not covers up or excuses abuses.

The Constitution puts faith in the Congress, trusting Congressmen to police themselves. Unfortunately, Congressmen have shown time and time again that that's something they are unwilling or unable to do. The investigation of Mark Foley's pedophilia will not be any different unless the House establishes an independent ethics commission to serve this constitutionally mandated role. Reports that there was a cover-up of Foley's habits are already circulating. To top it off, Dennis Hastert (R- IL) has personally handpicked members of the current Ethics Committee. This committee has not and obviously will not investigate anything thoroughly and seriously. U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) recognizes this, and is calling for an independent ethics commission.