Word arrived today that Barack Obama would not be accepting public financing for his campaign. The news is far from shocking in the context of the campaign — in fact it makes sense in almost every political way — but that doesn’t change the historical fact that Obama now becomes the first candidate of a major party to reject public financing since the system was created in 1976.

As the New York Times explains:

Under the federal presidential financing system, a candidate this year would be given $84.1 million from the Treasury to finance a general election campaign. In exchange, the candidate is barred from accepting private donations, or from spending more than the $84.1 million.

McCain will accept those funds (and thus the limits imposed by them) and Obama will not. It makes sense for his campaign because Obama can easily raise more than the $84.1 million public financing would have provided, and it makes sense practically because Obama’s campaign is not accepting the lobbyist, PAC, and 527 money that will pour into McCain’s war chest. Just as importantly, as the Times notes, contribution limits to political parties — where Republicans still hold an advantage — are so convoluted that it puts the entire public financing system into question. That is exactly what Obama himself argued today saying,

The public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.

For his part, McCain is upset that Obama has seemingly reversed course on a questionnaire pledge to participate in public financing (Obama wrote on the survey, ““If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”) McCain said today,

Senator Obama’s reversal on public financing is one of a number of reversals that he has taken. I’m especially disturbed by this decision of Senator Obama’s because he signed his name on a piece of paper, signed his name.

This election is about a lot of things but it’s also about trust. It’s also about whether you can take people’s word.

So what is this argument? Is it a serious political debate with a clear right and wrong answer or is it the same order of partisan, media-inflamed bickering that we’ll hear every day from here until the convention?

Any argument over public financing is really an argument that certain kinds of money influence politicians in inappropriate ways. It’s an argument that certain kinds of money corrupt political leaders. The public financing system was created to remove this influence, yet no one in their right — and nonpartisan — mind can argue that the public financing system, as it exists today, successfully does that. Yes, in the two months between the Republican convention and the November election John McCain’s campaign will receive public funds and not contributions from individuals, but because public financing laws have been so neutered by Congress and the courts, McCain’s campaign will receive the support of 527s, PACs, local and state parties as well the Republican National Committee. The only difference between these funds and the funds Obama’s campaign will collect — without the use of more than $84 million in tax payer money — is that there will be no direct paper trail.

This isn’t to say that Obama should not accept public financing; he should. Especially because he said he would. Public financing is a needed reform and it is both unfortunate and uncharacterstic that such a transformative leader either doesn’t understand that fact or has chosen to ignore it. In choosing to oppose public financing — even with its flaws — Obama has chosen to place the importance of money in this presidential campaign — even if it is largely money raised in small donations of under $100 — over the importance of truly transformative ideas.

That’s not to say that McCain is right. As the legislator responsible for many of these campaign finance laws he should, and surely does, recognize the failings of the public financing system. McCain is just as likely to be corrupted by his many moneyed interests as is Obama. The fact that he is accepting public funds does not change that. McCain’s gripe is simply that Obama can raise more than $84 million on his own and McCain cannot.

If the campaigns, if the parties, if the American people are truly interested in public financing, they will fix the system for good. Until then, candidates will either have to come to their own fair and unique agreements over which kinds of funds each campaign will accept, or they will have to shut up about it.