Would you be OK with the federal government limiting everybody to one hour of free speech to day in order to ensure that everybody could express themselves equally?

The point is that these are the logical outgrowths of Obama’s logic. I happen to think his new position is the correct one, but we need to know whether his new standards apply to everybody. And if so, what changed his mind?

That might be the case if he were proposing a more stringent limit for wealthy donors than poor donors. He could probably make the argument, though, that limiting wealthy and poor alike to the same cap on contributions is akin to limiting them to a single vote each.

I find your #3 point more persuasive. As to #1, I’m not sure where I sit on money being a form of protected speech or self-expression.

If he really wanted to be a dick he could then offer, in line with the spirit of McCain-Feingold…

If Barack Obama tries to lecture John McCain about ‘the spirit of McCain-Feingold,’ he’s going to get his head handed to him.

The best he can hope for is that this issue just goes away after he takes his hits on it. But I think the hits are going to me fairly substantial.

John is correct, in that I have changed my mind on this matter. I’ve seen, throughout the course of this campaign and as a result of the massive fundraising successes that I’ve been lucky enough to be a part of—bringing in more small donors to the political process than any other campaign in American history—that people want their voices heard. They want to be a part of the campaign, they want to invest in a new vision of the future, and they ARE being heard, loud and clear. And I’ve decided it’s not my place to get in the way of that.

Well, then, time somebody asked the rather obvious follow-ups:

1. If this is about “people wanting their voices heard”, do you believe, then, that money is equivalent to political speech? Do you still support campaign finance reform?

2. If money is a way of people having their voices heard, then wouldn’t it be unacceptable to restrict donations regardless of their size or origin? Do the wealthy have less of a right to express themselves than the poor?

3. Why didn’t you care about “people having their voices heard” prior to having so many voices raised on your behalf?

Sorry, Brad, but I think this is bigger than you do. What we have here is the first clear instance of Obama abandoning personal principle when it becomes politically convenient for him to do so. One has to wonder on what other issues he might make similar “adjustments”.

The package may represent a change, but the man inside looks like more of the same.

Of course, there was a bunch of other stuff in McCain-Feingold (which I wouldn’t call a ‘disaster’ so much as a ‘failure’ in that it hasn’t ‘cleaned up politics’ if that was its ostensible aim). Obama has reason to be grateful for the hard-money limit, which has effectively given him a fundraising advantage over Clinton (and everyone else), but I can see why he’s backtracking on his previous pledge.

“John is correct, in that I have changed my mind on this matter. I’ve seen, throughout the course of this campaign and as a result of the massive fundraising successes that I’ve been lucky enough to be a part of—bringing in more small donors to the political process than any other campaign in American history—that people want their voices heard. They want to be a part of the campaign, they want to invest in a new vision of the future, and they ARE being heard, loud and clear. And I’ve decided it’s not my place to get in the way of that.

I understand, however, why Senator McCain’s experience on this front might lead him to feel differently.”

What do you call it when a candidate stakes his reputation and throws his entire capital behind cleaning up money in politics—which turns out to be a disaster—and then to top it all off when the screws get turned on him, starts staking bets against how much he can get out of public financing to finance his private contributions?

You are, however, letting Obama off the hook way, way too easily with regard to what you call his “pseudo-pledge”. It was doublespeak, intended to create an impression in the minds of the voters, which he’s now walking away from due to the expediencies of the moment.

He has been, in short, very Clintonian about the matter.