There have been strong accusations made on the presidential campaign trail over public financing, a system that is collapsing and that no candidate has wholly embraced.

Democrats have charged John McCain with violating campaign finance laws for seeking and then rejecting public money in the primary. McCain has accused Barack Obama of breaking a pledge to take public financing in the general election if his opponent does the same. Both campaigns deny these charges, and both disputes are clouded in ambiguity.

"The most important thing to look at is, will [the presidential candidates] pledge to make this the last election cycle that is so dominated by big money." --David Donnelly, PCAF

But one thing is clear: Both McCain and Obama have staked out policy positions that are directly at odds with their actions on the campaign trail.

McCain, while he once backed legislation to overhaul the presidential public financing system, has now reversed course. He stated last year that federal money is not the answer to the campaign finance mess, and he refused to sign on to a Senate bill that would revive the presidential public funding system.

Yet McCain, whose campaign war chest is only about one-third the size of Obama's, is poised to opt in for presidential public funding in the general election. He's faulted Obama for reneging on an earlier pledge to participate, if nominated, in public financing if the GOP nominee did the same.

For his part, Obama is a leading Senate co-sponsor of legislation to promote public financing, not only for presidential candidates but for senators as well. He's signed on to a bill authored by Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., that would inject the bankrupt public financing system with more money and free the cash up to candidates earlier in the election. Obama's also co-sponsored a Senate bill that would set up a similar voluntary public financing system for senators.

Obama even sought the Federal Election Commission's approval last year to raise private money for the general election, on the condition that he return it if he opted in to the public financing system. In his request to the FEC, which was approved, Obama stated that if both nominees participated, "this would preserve the public financing system, now in danger of collapse, and facilitate the conduct of campaigns freed from any dependence on private financing."

Yet Obama, should he win his party's nomination, is now on track to be the first presidential candidate in three decades to reject public financing in both the primaries and the general election. While Obama has not closed the door on public financing, he and his campaign have sent strong signals that, if nominated, he will instead rely on his massive private campaign war chest. Obama has even suggested that his extraordinary success raising low-dollar donations over the Internet makes public financing no longer necessary.

"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it," Obama declared at a Washington fundraiser earlier this month. Similarly, Obama lawyer Bob Bauer stated on National Public Radio that Obama's record low-dollar fundraising accomplishes "all of the goals of the public financing system."

Such claims do not stand up to scrutiny, however. The small-donor surge would create a "parallel" public system only if it extended to all candidates, not just to Obama. True, an astounding 41 percent of the close to $200 million that Obama raised [PDF] through the end of February came in donations of $200 or less, according to the Campaign Finance Institute. But only about a quarter of the $174 million raised by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton came from small donors. And contributions of $200 or less constituted only 13 percent of the $66 million that McCain collected in the same time frame.

Obama's collected just as much money from donors giving $1,000 or more, according to CFI, not to mention the wealthy and influential "bundlers" who anchor his finance committee. Some 79 of these bundlers, who include some of the nation's most influential billionaires, lawyers and Wall Street executives, have rounded up $200,000 each for the Obama campaign, the Washington Post recently disclosed.

"What he's doing is not recognized as public financing," notes David Donnelly, national campaign director for the Public Campaign Action Fund, a nonprofit that advocates public funding in elections across the board.

McCain's tried to make hay out of Obama's apparent doublespeak, challenging him to stick to his original pledge to participate in public financing. Bauer has countered that Obama's request to the FEC included no promise of participation. But Obama did explicitly tell pro-reform advocacy groups, including the Midwest Democracy Network, that if nominated, he would "aggressively pursue" a pledge with his GOP opponent to preserve public financing in the general election.

McCain, of course, has his own credibility problems when it comes to public financing. The Democratic National Committee has filed suit claiming that McCain needed permission from the FEC, which currently lacks a quorum, to reject public funding in the primary. McCain's camp counters that since the senator never received any public money, he needed no formal approval to eschew it.

Whatever the lawyers conclude, no candidate has taken a clear or consistent position on public funding. Clinton co-sponsored Feingold's public financing reform bill, yet she made clear from the start that she didn't plan to accept public money in the election. The real test, say reform advocates, will be whether the next president actually backs legislation to revive the system. Says Donnelly of the Public Campaign Action Fund: "The most important thing to look at is, will they pledge to make this the last election cycle that is so dominated by big money."