FEC BIG MAC ATTACK
“…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….”
There are a number of rumors and comments out there about FEC Chair David Mason’s comments that McCain could be in violation of FEC rules concerning campaign contributions and his two campaign loans. I think several things need to be noted.
1. The full FEC commission does not exist because the Dems will not approve the nominees.
2. There is some le-way that is open to interpretation.
3. The most important thing – it is entirely possible, because of a previous duel in the sun, that David Mason may hold a grudge against John McCain and may not be the most unbiased person to make a ruling against him. I think if this were a court, Mason would be forced to bow out himself due to personal bias. If this is the case, one must wonder why it has taken Mason nearly 2 weeks to make a decision that is going to abjectly cripple the McCain campaign. Because the ruling is open to interpretation, why has Mason demanded something like the abject letter of the law when he has been known in the past to be a bit lenient in rulings.
.
The WSJ version:
“…Here's where the explanation gets really lawyered up. The McCain campaign hurries to say it didn't actually surrender its public funding certification as collateral, oh no. The campaign applied to the Federal Election Commission for matching funds, and once that application was approved went to a bank and opened a line of credit based on the possibility that they might someday reapply for matching funds if the campaign faltered. "We never claimed that the matching funds were collateral for the loan," says McCain lawyer Trevor Potter. "This was all a hypothetical future transaction." (We wish we could get bank loans like that.)
So why does the distinction matter? Because under FEC rules, using the certification as collateral would have locked the candidate into accepting the matching funds and the federal spending limits that come with them. And Mr. McCain has declared he has no intention of accepting federal funds for the Republican primary season.
Yesterday, FEC Chairman David Mason said he still has questions about Mr. McCain's loan terms -- questions that need to be answered before the candidate will be allowed to drop out of the primary financing system and its restrictions. Adds Capital University Law Professor and Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith: "There is certainly an argument that what they did amounts to a pledge of the funds" as collateral. Either way, it appears that Mr. McCain has been employing lawyers to game the campaign finance rules he hails as a defense against "corruption."
Having decided not to accept public financing during the primary, the possibility of going up against Barack Obama in the general election is a different story. Mr. McCain insists he intends to take public financing, saying: "I made the commitment to the American people." And, by the way, he expects Mr. Obama to honor his earlier pledge to do the same. But, naturally, Mr. Obama is having second thoughts now that he's rolling in dough. (See "Obama's Cash Games")…”
So why does the distinction matter? Because under FEC rules, using the certification as collateral would have locked the candidate into accepting the matching funds and the federal spending limits that come with them. And Mr. McCain has declared he has no intention of accepting federal funds for the Republican primary season.
Yesterday, FEC Chairman David Mason said he still has questions about Mr. McCain's loan terms -- questions that need to be answered before the candidate will be allowed to drop out of the primary financing system and its restrictions. Adds Capital University Law Professor and Former FEC Chairman Brad Smith: "There is certainly an argument that what they did amounts to a pledge of the funds" as collateral. Either way, it appears that Mr. McCain has been employing lawyers to game the campaign finance rules he hails as a defense against "corruption."
Having decided not to accept public financing during the primary, the possibility of going up against Barack Obama in the general election is a different story. Mr. McCain insists he intends to take public financing, saying: "I made the commitment to the American people." And, by the way, he expects Mr. Obama to honor his earlier pledge to do the same. But, naturally, Mr. Obama is having second thoughts now that he's rolling in dough. (See "Obama's Cash Games")…”
DIGGING DEEPER
I’ve learned never to trust the word “conservative”. Sorry, but the average DC conservative is as sleazy as liberals. David Mason, the FEC Chair who is making the problems for McCain was appointed by Bill Clinton. He was a member of the Heritage Foundation. He is the author of Why the Congress Can’t Ban False Money. I have a feeling Mason is a stickler for the law and may have a grudge against McCain.
“…Mason, a former Heritage Foundation senior fellow who fought campaign-finance regulations before President George W. Bush named him FEC chairman, also defended the agency's rulemaking to clarify parts of the law, which prohibits large, unregulated contributions to political parties. Critics charged that the FEC, which oversees and enforces federal election laws, "undermined the McCain-Feingold law by narrowing the scope of the ban on soft money that is at the heart of the reform bill." In a blistering attack on the commission, McCain said the agency "has taken upon itself the task of rewriting" the law. But in his first extensive interview since the FEC issued those rules, Mason rejected that criticism.
"The sponsors of the bill wanted more, but I think we did a good job on the rules. When there are a lot of ambiguities in the legislation, that's the normal process of what the FEC does," Mason said. As for the stinging criticism from McCain and his allies, Mason said, "I'm a pretty big boy. I can handle that." Congress has 60 days to reject the FEC's rules, but Mason said, "I don't expect Congress to do anything to them." The FEC still has to hand down rules governing the remaining five parts of the law, which will take effect Nov. 6. Mason said he expects the commission will not finish its work until the end of the year.
But when asked whether the act of giving money to a political party or candidates is a form of free speech, and thus protected by the Constitution, Mason appeared to put aside his role as defender of the new law and gave a candid assessment of the ideological issue at the heart of the court dispute. "In order [for a political party] to communicate, you have to spend money to make your case. So in that case, the money is inextricably tied up in [free] speech, even though it is not the same thing," he said. But, yes, "limiting the amount of money that you can contribute to political communications, to be spent on political communications is effectively a limit on your political speech," he said. He pointed out that free speech was the reason the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several post-Watergate campaign-spending limits in its 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo….”
"The sponsors of the bill wanted more, but I think we did a good job on the rules. When there are a lot of ambiguities in the legislation, that's the normal process of what the FEC does," Mason said. As for the stinging criticism from McCain and his allies, Mason said, "I'm a pretty big boy. I can handle that." Congress has 60 days to reject the FEC's rules, but Mason said, "I don't expect Congress to do anything to them." The FEC still has to hand down rules governing the remaining five parts of the law, which will take effect Nov. 6. Mason said he expects the commission will not finish its work until the end of the year.
But when asked whether the act of giving money to a political party or candidates is a form of free speech, and thus protected by the Constitution, Mason appeared to put aside his role as defender of the new law and gave a candid assessment of the ideological issue at the heart of the court dispute. "In order [for a political party] to communicate, you have to spend money to make your case. So in that case, the money is inextricably tied up in [free] speech, even though it is not the same thing," he said. But, yes, "limiting the amount of money that you can contribute to political communications, to be spent on political communications is effectively a limit on your political speech," he said. He pointed out that free speech was the reason the U.S. Supreme Court struck down several post-Watergate campaign-spending limits in its 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo….”
Is David Mason trying to hamstring McCain? There are a number of legal questions here, and the FEC may not be on stolid ground here.
WPost
“…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….”
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….”
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, A Blog For All, 123beta, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, Pirate's Cove, Celebrity Smack, Wolf Pangloss, Dumb Ox Daily News, , Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.
08 Bloggers Alliance
">
View my page on Political Voices of Women
Shared with my fellow Straight Talking Bloggers at Ali Akbar, AzaMatterofact, AzaMatteroPrinciple, Blogs4McCain, BroadSideoftheBarn, ElectionNightHQ, Hoosiers4McCain, Iowa4McCain, McCain Blogettes, McCain States, McCain Talk, McCainVictory08, McCain Campaign Blog, McCain08HQ@Yahoo, Metaxupolis, My McCain Blog, NH4McCain, NJ4McCain, Pardon My French, Partisan American, PoliticoMafioso, Purple People Vote, Respectfully Republican, Stand Up For McCain, The Mad Irishman, The McCain Times, Vote McCain, With Both Hands, Porter County Politics, and But I am a Liberal.
![Pink Flamingo [Home]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/blog_photos_album/flamingo_crossing.jpg)
