Public Financing in the General Election. - Page 3

justabubba · #21 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 07:28 AM

so McCain can opt out when it suits him and then opt in when he runs out of private cash ... how binding was that?
allowing that ambiguous behavior to be binding on an opponent would be a nice deal if someone is foolish enough to allow it to happen. Obama is no rube (which alone may disqualify him from the demo candidacy, based on the previous selections of gore and kerry)

Garth · #22 (**permalink**) 02-21-2008, 11:44 PM

The reality is that they both said they would use public financing in the general election and I think it would be unwise for either of them to go back on their word.

This is good news for McCain because he doesn't have much support from the Republicans with a large pocketbook, while Obama has raised more money than any candidate in history (I have no source, but I heard that somewhere).

In reality, the private money that is raised will to each respective party (or friendly 3rd parties) which will in turn be spent on ads for each candidate. While this seems like a good idea, it will only result less transparency in elections.

Bottom line is that neither of them will go back on their words, but money will be raised, and it will be spent on the campaigns: just not from McCain or Obama. I don't think this will make much of a difference in the long run.

DuH2 · #23 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 12:37 AM

I think* there are some rules that would effectively control how 3rd parties can campaign for a canidate that will have an impact on that.

But anyway...
If say Obama's friends went spending McCain would probably make it another campaign issue.

Obama will not be in a position (if he is even the nominee) against McCain to play loose with issues. McCain will hobble him with quite a few right off the bat..from taxes to war...as it is.

We'll see but I would be surprised if Obama took the hit poltically(he can't afford that) and said "no I'll do my own thing"..McCain could play that for months..

Garth · #24 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 12:51 AM

I'm not saying he will go against his pledge at all. I don't think he would even sanction all of the ads. But I think there will be more money spent on the campaign than given by public funding. As for the rules, there are always loopholes. There will probably be considerable pressure from each party.

Look, I'm not saying that either of them will compromise their integrity. I think "the powers that be" will sort of force it on them. I don't think they can help it.

STA · #25 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 07:18 AM

Public Financing is one step closer to communism imo.

I'm opposed to it.

justabubba · #26 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 07:19 AM

rife with irony. the McCain designed system of public financing cannot consider McCain's request to withdraw from his previous commitment to public financing because there is no quorum - appears dubya, in a fit of pique, has refused to send up nominees to the commission which must render a ruling. (*)(*)(*)(*), this is sweet.
$54 million spending cap and McCain is now at $49 million spent.
and read for yourself the manipulations that were gone thru to circumvent the restriction on candidates who relied on their public financing commitment to borrow campain funds. that million dollar loan pledging public funding monies may impede McCain's hopes to withdraw from the system ... assuming a quorum could be found to consider his request.
it gets better. the campaign's attorney tries to assert that the FEC warning letter expressing that the campaign cannot now choose to depart public financing has "dismissed the letter as unenforceable because the FEC lacks a quorum to resolve the dispute".
truly hoisted by his own (and dubya's) petard

Quote:

The nation's top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall. The prospect of being financially hamstrung by the very fundraising system he helped create is the latest in a series of bitter challenges for the presumed GOP nominee, who still faces a fractured conservative coalition as he assumes the mantle of party leadership. ... But McCain's attempts to build up his campaign coffers before a general election contest appeared to be threatened by the stern warning yesterday from Federal Election Commission Chairman David M. Mason, a Republican. Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system.
The implications of that could be dramatic. Last year, when McCain's campaign was starved for cash, he applied to join the financing system to gain access to millions of dollars in federal matching money. He was also permitted to use his FEC certification to bypass the time-consuming process of gathering signatures to get his name on the ballot in several states, including Ohio. By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement. But after McCain won a series of early contests and the campaign found its financial footing, his lawyer wrote to the FEC requesting to back out of the program -- which is permitted for candidates who have not yet received any federal money and who have not used the promise of federal funding as collateral for borrowing money.
Mason's letter raises two issues as the basis for his position. One is that the six-member commission lacks a quorum, with four vacancies because of a Senate deadlock over President Bush's nominees for the seats. Mason said the FEC would need to vote on McCain's request to leave the system, which is not possible without a quorum. Until that can happen, the candidate will have to remain within the system, he said.
The second issue is more complicated. It involves a $1 million loan McCain obtained from a Bethesda bank in January. The bank was worried about his ability to repay the loan if he exited the federal financing program and started to lose in the primary race. McCain promised the bank that, if that happened, he would reapply for matching money and offer those as collateral for the loan. While McCain's aides have argued that the campaign was careful to make sure that they technically complied with the rules, Mason indicated that the question needs further FEC review.
If the FEC refuses McCain's request to leave the system, his campaign could be bound by a potentially debilitating spending limit until he formally accepts his party's nomination. His campaign has already spent $49 million, federal reports show. Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison.
"If in fact he is stuck with these spending limits, it would be a serious limitation on what he can do," said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles.
Finance experts compared the situation to the massive imbalance faced by Republican presidential nominee Robert J. Dole in 1996, when he was forced to contend with spending limits while his opponent, President Bill Clinton, was not.
Trevor Potter, a former FEC chairman who is McCain's top lawyer, immediately disputed the assertions in Mason's letter, saying McCain has a constitutional right to exit the federal program. He also dismissed the letter as unenforceable because the FEC lacks a quorum to resolve the dispute.
"We believe that Senator McCain had a clear legal right to withdraw from the primary matching fund system, and he has done so," Potter told the Associated Press. "No FEC action was or is required for withdrawal."
Campaign finance experts were split on how serious the FEC position could become. But several agreed that the matter would not be resolved by McCain simply ignoring the letter and plowing ahead.
"It's nice for Trevor Potter to say 'Buzz off,' but the campaign is going to have to respond," said Bradley Smith, a former FEC chairman.
"This is serious," agreed Republican election lawyer Jan Baran. Ignoring the matter on the grounds that the FEC lacks a quorum, Baran said, "is like saying you're going to break into houses because the sheriff is out of town."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...l?hpid=topnews

JMS · #27 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 07:50 AM

lol, i hope he does try to make this a campaign issue against obama. im sure itll work out to his benefit, hahaha.

Garth · #28 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 04:22 PM

The way I see it:

- This goes away and neither of them follow their pledges and Obama wins.

- They both keep their pledges and the Republicans can't mobilize their famous smear tactics and Obama wins.

This is just a feeble attempt to level the playing field, but I don't think it will work either way.

DuH2 · #29 (**permalink**) 02-22-2008, 07:10 PM

ooops..............

JP5 · #30 (**permalink**) 02-23-2008, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gmb92

McCain's down 3 TDs at the start of the 4th quarter and he's requesting a draw. Too late, buddy.

McCain has already nailed his nomination; Obama hasn't. Nor has Clinton. The Dems have a bit of a problem. Looks like the Dems are backed up and need to punt.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How the Democrats will lose the general election and how to beat McCain	SeminalBlog	Political Blogs	0	02-06-2008 11:10 AM
So the general public likes the obvious putdowns...	PoliticalForum	Humor & Satire	0	01-17-2008 10:40 PM
Irish General Election	EiregoSod	Western Europe	25	05-25-2007 02:27 PM
Campaign Financing	ForceoftheTruth	Political Opinions & Beliefs	13	04-28-2006 02:20 AM