The American Mind

Fox News reported the bank released a statement explicitly stating McCain didn’t use matching funds as collateral.

Right – he used his eligibility for matching funds as collateral. The FEC seems to think that doesn’t make any difference.

Now we know why McCain made up Obama’s nonexistent “public funds pledge”.

http://www.thompsoncoalition.com/

Chet, read Bradley Smith. The former Romney backer has more knowledge about campaign finance laws in his pinky finger than both of us have in our entire bodies.

His conclusion:

So this may be much more a PR problem than anything else for the McCain campaign. That McCain has made his reputation as a “reformer” makes it all the more a PR problem. But it’s a risk that simply has to be run. There is no other choice.

There’s also reality. Until the FEC has a quorum they can’t do anything to McCain. He’ll have to find a way to spin his way out.

Like McCain’s lame attack on Obama for breaking his public financing pledge this story will have some legs then fade away. Voters won’t pick their President based on public financing.

The former Romney backer has more knowledge about campaign finance laws in his pinky finger than both of us have in our entire bodies.

I dunno, I’m going to go with the actual commissioner of the FEC on this, the one who made it abundantly clear that McCain can’t unilaterally drop out of the system after having used it as collateral on a loan. David Mason’s no Democrat, you know.

Voters won’t pick their President based on public financing.

I dunno. I have a sense that McCain being indicted and convicted for violating federal election law would probably influence a few swing voters.

Bradley Smith is well-regarded as one of the best campaign finance experts. He also was an FEC commissioner too (as was McCain’s legal eagle Trevor Potter).

No one will get indicted or convicted. The FEC has no quorum and after Gore v. Bush I doubt the courts will want to get involved in something less significant as campaign finance.

It’s still a PR problem for Sen. “Campaign Finance Reform.”

Bradley Smith is well-regarded as one of the best campaign finance experts.

But he’s not currently the commissioner of the FEC. I just don’t understand what kind of argument from authority you’re making here, Sean. Smith’s entitled to his opinion, but Mason’s given the ruling.

Chet, Mason can’t give a ruling because the FEC does not have a quorum. So it amounts to two campaign finance lawyers arguing esoterics.

Mason can’t give a ruling because the FEC does not have a quorum.

That’s hardly a point in McCain’s favor. Mason is stating what the ruling would be. The fact that there’s no quorum means it can’t be enforced, that’s true. But honestly it hardly speaks well for McCain that he’s taking the attitude of “yes, I’m aware I’m breaking the law, but I know you can’t stop me.” Looks like he’s gone from “maverick” to “outlaw.”

Mason has no idea how a complete FEC would rule. His letter isn’t law. So again “it amounts to two campaign finance lawyers arguing esoterics.”

I’m definitely not denying the pickle McCain has put himself in. Maybe that will teach him that simplifying campaign finance law is better than piling on more regulations.

Maybe that will teach him that simplifying campaign finance law is better than piling on more regulations.

Or, alternatively, he could simply obey the law. I notice Obama isn’t having any difficulty doing so.

[...] Not surprisingly the lack of an FEC quorum came up. Davis went after Obama for putting a hold on Hans Von Spakovsky’s nomination. He wants the media to ask why he’s “paralyzed” the Presidential campaign. [...]

There’s a perfectly reasonable legal case that McCain is abiding by the law. And I’m the hyper-partisan hack? Look in the mirror.

There’s a perfectly reasonable legal case that McCain is abiding by the law.

Reasonable to partisans, perhaps. To everybody else – and again, to the chairman of the FEC – the precise opposite is abundantly obvious. McCain committed to the funds; he can’t unilaterally drop out of the obligations.

Look in the mirror.

When I do I see a man who voted for Bush in 2000, initially supported the war in Iraq, and was a relentless critic of the Clinton administration. What do you see, Sean?

Silly wabbit, you’re the only one who seriously thinks anyone will go to jail over this. Here’s a quote from Rick Hasen, the apparently non-partisan, publisher of the Election Law Blog:

That’s probably not a problem legally (though it could be), and it is not clear that the party can fill in the gap for McCain while he’s in limbo on his fundraising. But McCain faces at least a political problem. More than anyone else, Sen. McCain’s name is synonymous with campaign finance reform (think McCain-Feingold). If he’s arguably in violation of the law, that will tarnish his reputation. He may be able to make technically correct arguments that he is not in violation, but the smell is bad. And with this issue lingering, it will be hard for the opt out-opt in-opt out McCain to make political hay out of. Obama’s hedging on whether to opt in during the general election.

Silly wabbit, you’re the only one who seriously thinks anyone will go to jail over this.

I can dream, can’t I? The likely outcome is that McCain will simply halt his own spending rather than tempt the ire of the FEC, and unaccountable 527’s will make up the difference.

At least we know why McCain’s been flogging the nonexistent “Obama promise”.