Proposal by Obama on Public Financing Appears to Gain

WASHINGTON, Feb. 22 — The staff of the Federal Election Commission has drafted an opinion that would allow the two major parties’ presidential nominees to adopt what amounts to a fund-raising truce.

The draft opinion would allow the nominees, if both agreed, to return contributions they had solicited for the general election campaign and limit themselves to public financing for it instead.

The opinion is a response to an inquiry by Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination. It is an indication of how the commission, which released the document Thursday, is likely to rule on the idea. The commissioners are expected to issue their decision after a meeting next Thursday.

Mr. Obama sought the ruling after all the front-runners in both parties rejected public financing for the primary campaign, already under way, and prepared to forgo it for the general election as well, to avoid the spending limits that it imposes. That would make the 2008 general election the first outside the system since its creation in the aftermath of the Watergate scandal more than three decades ago.

Candidates say the amount of public financing — it would be about $85 million per nominee next year — has failed to keep pace not only with campaign costs but also with the potential for private contributions, meaning a candidate who does not seek donations early on risks falling far behind.

But Mr. Obama, campaigning on pledges to clean up politics, argued in his filing with the commission that the public financing system had insulated candidates from a corrupting dependence on big donors. He asserted that the system could be preserved for the general election through bipartisan agreement if party nominees returned early contributions.

The plausibility of such an agreement is not clear. One nominee is likely to have a financial edge on the other at the outset of the campaign, and accepting public financing would mean relinquishing that edge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/23/us/politics/23fec.html

It could be the foundation for a recognition that elections aren't true contests where the best player wins, when the resources are so unequal. An idea that might lead to an agreement on public financing.