Why the assumption that Democrats are inherently more interested in campaign finance reform? Obama ran the most expensive campaign in history and took plenty of special interest money.

Seriously, nothing will happen if not even the comparably bright people on this site is able to digest the fact that politics in the US is more complicated (and, indeed more broken) than "democrat good, republican bad". They're pretty much all scum, and the few honest people seem to be pretty well distributed across the parties.

People assume that democrats are more interested in campaign finance reform because most serious attempts to reform campaign finance laws have been spearheaded by Democrats and opposed by establishment Republicans. Every senator who voted against McCain-Feingold was a Republican, and many prominent Republicans and conservative organizations (Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute) approved of the Citizens United decision.

Every politician does whatever they can within the rules (and then some) to get elected, but some want to change the rules because, for example, banning corporate donations would probably hurt Republicans more than Democrats.

Well, McCain sponsored and Bush signed McCain-Feingold. Second, Citizens United isn't about campaign finance per se. Since the people spending money under CU can't even talk to the campaign they support, this category of spending is at least a layer removed from the candidate, and quid-pro-quo becomes more difficult.

But finally, and my most important point: No, Republicans, to the extend they have a common position doesn't want campaign finance reform. But neither does the democrats (to the extend they have a common position). Most significantly, a very prominent Democrat broke his pledge to take public financing in the face of raising heaps of money and outspend his opponent 2:1.

I mean, perfectly honest, Democratic congress or not, is Obama going to get behind serious campaign finance reform?

Because Republicans loudly proclaim the equivalency of money and speech, and always come out against attempts to regulate spending in elections?

Seriously, it's part of their platform.

Does anyone else see the irony of public campaign financing as a solution to problems explained in the this article?

In the same way that companies distort regulations of their industry to thwart competition, politicians will ensure that public campaign financing rules will prevent newcomers (e.g. tea party, green party, etc) from ever getting elected.