This week, presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee Barack Obama announced that he's bypassing the "public" financing available for his fall presidential campaign against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain; instead, he will rely on private donations.  While many are attacking him for his flip-flop on the issue — he pledged last fall to utilize the so-called "public finance" system in the general campaign — I salute him.  In essence, he has decided to rely solely on voluntary rather than coerced contributions; he also seemingly has recognized the superior nature of the private enterprise system to government intrusion.

The so-called "public finance" system of funding campaigns is based on the idea that too much money in politics has a corrupting influence, and that the public is better served by having money confiscated from their paychecks and given to candidates for campaigns, regardless of whether or not an individual agrees with that candidate or wants his money spent thusly.  The amount of money available is ostensibly determined by the people who mark the check box on their tax returns, which currently volunteers $3 for each person checking.  Of course, the government claims that this doesn't affect one's tax return either way, and in a narrowly-defined way they are telling the truth — it might not come directly from an individual's tax return, but since the government has to get the money somewhere, it obviously impacts all taxpayers, whether or not they check the box.  [This writer makes it a point never to check the box.]  In agreeing to the "public" funding, the candidate assumes certain limitations in spending — money will be raised in small increments defined by the government, for example.  At any rate, the system is one in which the taxpayers are forced to foot the bill for private jets, campaign consultants, four-star hotels, and other perks for the candidate and his or her staff and consultants.  In eschewing this money, Sen. Obama has decided to accept the campaign donations of only those who voluntarily decide to give him money.  For this he should be thanked.

Obama's decision also shows, for perhaps the first time, his understanding that the private sector is more effective than the public sector at providing goods and services.  A practical fund raising machine, Obama has already raised more campaign cash than any candidate in history.  He already bypassed the public financing system for the primaries, and he is the first major candidate to turn down the public money in the general election.  The ultimate reason:  already a record-setting fundraiser, Obama is predicted to raise upwards of $250 million for the general election; some are predicting as much as $300-400 million.  The estimated amount of public financing he would have received is only $84-85 million.  This means that he will have somewhere between $170-300 million more than McCain, putting normally out-of-play states into the picture.  One expert on the radio today, Dr. Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia, estimated that McCain has enough cash to make a serious effort in about 20 states; he'll certainly campaign in more than that, and some states are solidly enough Republican that they don't require campaign expenditures.  Obama, on the other hand, will be able to make pushes in 35-40 states.  This could assist not only Obama's campaign, but also the down-ballot candidates.  An Obama victory could have major coattails in the House and Senate, as well as state legislatures — immensely important heading into the 2010 census and the subsequent redistricting.

Unfortunately, both Obama and McCain want to limit our ability to participate in the political process, as both favor government regulation of our political speech; the most famous campaign finance "reform" bill carries McCain's name.  At least Obama has freed the taxpayers from the burden of funding his efforts.  Perhaps the success he finds at using the private sector for his campaign will help him rethink his faith in using the government to coerce taxpayers to fund other endeavors such as health care and social programs.  Perhaps his success at bypassing the public funding system will help both men rethink their faith in government regulation of political speech.  If so, the winners will be the taxpayers and all citizens who prize individual liberty.