The recent flap between John McCain and Barack Obama over a pledge to accept public funding of the Presidential campaign has gained little traction with the general public. Over half of likely voters could not even guess which candidate had recently re-affirmed his commitment to accept public funding and the limitations that come with it. A recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 27% correctly answered John McCain, while 16% thought it was Barack Obama who had made that commitment.

By way of comparison, a separate survey found that most Americans (54%) could identify Obama as the candidate who had been accused of plagiarism.

There may be many reasons why the campaign finance topic has not generated more heat, but certainly one reason is that most people don’t like the concept to begin with—just 30% favor public funding of Presidential campaigns while 47% are opposed. Over half of Republicans (52%) are opposed to it, while 28% favor the practice. Democrats are split--with 38% opposed to public funding of campaigns and 36% for it.

Forty-one percent (41%) of voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who refused public funding, while 23% say they would be less likely. The issue has no impact on 29% of voters.

The survey also found that 30% of likely voters say friendly reporters benefit a candidate more than campaign cash. Twenty-nine percent (29%) say the cash is more important while 41% are not sure. The skepticism about media bias runs at least as deep as the skepticism about campaign contributions. A mid-December survey found that voters overwhelmingly believe reporters cover Presidential debates in a way that helps their favorite Presidential candidate. A series of surveys conducted in July found that major news sources such as The New York Times, Fox News and MSNBC are seen as biased.

Crosstabs are available to Premium Members only.