In case you’re wondering what McCain is talking about here, this is Sen. Obama’s statement of commitment [pdf]:

QUESTION: “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

OBAMA: “Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D-WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system. In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Obama took to the pages of USA Today to write his thoughts on the matter earlier today:

In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties’ eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party’s nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.

It certainly seems that Obama is inching closer and closer to accepting a public funding agreement. Like I said the other day, if Obama doesn’t accept it, or tries to put a “poison pill” into the negotiations, McCain has a very effective weapon to hammer him over. He says in the press conference in Washington that Obama is engaging in “Washington doublespeak.” If this attack can be tied to the fact that Obama doesn’t have a single legislative accomplishment that he (or even his own national surrogates!) can point to, I think McCain would be in a much stronger position. If Obama and McCain do end up sitting down and working out a deal on public financing, this also works out to McCain’s advantage, because the FEC places caps on the amount that you can spend in a particular state.

According to the FEC’s website, they have the anticipated national general election spending cap for each party for a hypothetical 2007 matchup ($81.8 million for each nominee - most observers think that it will be $85 million for the 2008 general). Even more fascinating than that is that the FEC would also cap the amount that can be spent in each state (based of population size), regardless of whether it’s a battleground or not. Take a look at these numbers.