Yesterday morning I woke up to an email from Barack Obama announcing that he was opting out of public financing for the general election. The implications are huge for Democrats, and include stretching McCain's resources thin by making him campaign in all 50 states, making some red states go blue, and increasing chances on down-ballot races across the country.

The McCain response to Obama forgoing public funding was predictably negative. While McCain's soundbites on the matter are inane, there is a legitimate question out there as to whether all this money in the election is a good thing. I think it is.

Imagine a scenario where the Democratic and Republican candidates are both out of the public financing constraints and raising hundreds of millions of dollars. It would give both parties the resources to be competitive nationwide. Both sides could organize in all states and involve the electorate in reaches of the country traditionally forgotten in a system where resources are low and only swing states matter. It would engage people politically who previously had little or no motivation because their state had no organization or money spent there. Advertising nationally and in niche markets (e.g. Comedy Central, Lifetime, ESPN) also has the potential to engage so many more people than are currently.

Besides engaging more people, having more money go to the candidates would diminish the funds and effect of the so-called 527 groups that smear candidates (a la Swift Vote Veterans for "Truth"). Getting that trash out of politics can only be good.

Counterintuitively, having more money in the system might be more democratic because more people would be invested in the outcome, and the 527 propaganda machines would be much less influential.

One might point out that the only reason why Obama will go to all 50 states is because he will have a pile of money that McCain doesn't, so Obama can splurge on competing everywhere. When both candidates have equally huge war chests, the logic might go, the campaigns would revert to maximizing resources in only the swing states and the non-competitive states would get ignored again. To this, I would way that there's a saturation point in campaigning somewhere like Ohio. Once you inundate the airwaves, mail, and ground, there is little effect of spending extra. Furthermore, the ability to advertise nationally and in niche markets still reaches more people regardless of this supposed reversion effect.

There is still the concern people have about too much money in politics, but I really don't think it's a big deal. Individuals being able to contribute $2,300 (the max in this election cycle) hardly corrupts the system. Besides, if the Obama model is typical, the contributions are averaging something like $75. So many more people can afford to donate $35 than can afford a full $2,300 or close it. You can imagine an equivalent system on the Republican side with a ton of small contributions coming from millions of Southern Baptists, for example.

So let the money flow, and get some people from Alabama, California, Idaho, and elsewhere invested and involved. And make these 527 groups irrelevant.