Skip to main content

Right this very minute. Every commercial that airs, every T-shirt and mailer printed, every minute every paid staffer works, every copy they make at every campaign office.  He can do this openly and with impunity because the Federal Election Commission has been rendered inoperable by the current Republican administration.

This is the most glaring and salient fact about the state of public financing of the presidential election right now, and should be a prominent part of every article written about Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing.

But it's somehow nowhere to be found in discussions in the old media.  Why?  Because it's too complicated for Joe Sixpack to follow?  Nonsense.  Let me explain it with a simple dialogue.

Hey, let's make a deal you and me.  Let's commit to only spending $100 a month on gas from now until the end of the year...

You're already spending nearly twice that?  Well so am I. But let's do it anyway.  It'll save us some money, save some gas, be good for the country and all of that.  

Good... You agree in principle.  We'll sit down next week and hash out all the details? Agreed.

Oh yeah, I did forget to tell you that I made a similar agreement with Jeff for $75 a month several months back, but since March I've been spending about 175.  Sure he called me on it, but what's he gonna do?

What do you mean "no deal"? You gave your word!  You're backing out on your commitment to me and to the American People!

I don't think it's so tough to understand not wanting to make a deal with someone who is already flagrantly violating the rules.  

We should also review the facts, which also aren't too tough to follow.

In late 2007, John McCain's campaign was effectively broke, as he was not the favorite of the wealthy wingnuts who underwrite the Republican machine.  So in December of 2007, shortly before the New Hampshire primary, McCain took out two loans, totaling about $4 million.  Since the bank apparently didn't think the "Straight Talk Express" bus would cover that much as collateral, McCain had to pledge the money from the public financing system as repayment if he couldn't pay it back.  The law is written so that taking out a loan against the public money is considered as using the money (in order to avoid a huge loophole), so that by doing so McCain obliged himself to follow the rules, including the most important of the rules, the spending limits.  And even though the primaries are over, the spending limit is for the primary phase of the campaign, which goes through the party's national convention.  

The spending limit for the primary phase of the presidential campaign is $54 million. Now once Republican voters, almost as disgusted with the GOP brand as the rest of the nation, voted heavily for the candidate the corporate media assured them was a "maverick" unlike those other Republicans as the best of a bad lot, McCain became the presumptive nominee. At that point the money started flowing in, and he started spending it, and not just on beating Mike Huckabee in the primaries either. McCain blew past the $54 million cap  sometime in March.  Seeing that coming, McCain tried to claim that he was withdrawing from public financing in late February, only to be told by FEC chairman David Mason, No you can't, because first we don't have a quorum to release you, and second, how do you explain this here loan agreement?

McCain kept on spending.

The DNC complained.  The FEC did nothing.  Then the DNC sued the FEC for its failure to act in April.  And while the FEC's disciplinary actions have traditionally been of the "lashes with a wet noodle" variety, right now it can't even manage that level of discipline, due to the fact that it has been eviscerated by the current Republican administration.  Not only has President Bush continued to insist on vote-suppression criminal Hans von Spakofsky, Bush went even further and gave the chairman David Mason (a fellow Republican) the boot for having the effrontery on calling McCain on his campaign funds shell-game.

Now, just how many people would find this an environment in which you would agree to a deal on campaign financing?

Personally I wouldn't have even considered the offer of negotiations valid under the circumstances.  Remember, despite what the RWCM says, Obama never committed to public financing.  He committed to trying for an agreement with the Republican nominee.  Despite McCain's hypocrisy and the fact that he is actively cheating the system, Obama did send his people to talk to McCain's people about it. Of course, the McCain camp never had any intention of reaching a reasonable agreement.  They insisted in keeping the 527s around, even while Obama had unilaterally put the kaibosh on several potential Democratic 527s.

But of course, the press maintains that it's all Obama's fault.  The "liberal" New York Times has no less than three big pieces on this today.  The front page headline (incorrectly) states Obama, in Shift, Says He’ll Reject Public Financing.  (Where's this "shift"? He said he would seek an agreement with the Republican nominee, and he did.  The two camps were unable to agree.)  A "News Analysis" piece lays the charge straight out: Obama’s Decision Threatens Public Financing System. And the lead editorial laments Public Financing On the Ropes, a situation for which it tells us Barack Obama is to blame, with no mention of Bush's emasculation of the FEC or McCain's primary-fund perfidy, even though they are clearly aware of these facts, as they've reported on them plenty of times before now.

One more big honkin' example of the free ride John McCain will continue to get from our sorry excuse for a press.  

The only question is, are you just gonna sit there and let them get away with it?

Originally posted to zeke L on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:32 PM PDT.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  to make my dialogue really equal (9+ / 0-)

    i suppose i should have added a part where we exchange a couple preliminary emails, with me demanding a loophole where gas burned while my kid is driving me doesn't count, while you've already taken the keys from your kids and told them to take the bus or ride their bikes.

    l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

    by zeke L on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:34:04 PM PDT

  •  Of course, McCain can't be punished. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JeffW, kyril, luckylizard

    We have, after all, that annoying little provision about not prosecuting someone who is found to incompetent to stand trial (in this case, due to encroaching senility)!

  •  By breaking the law (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, Tricky

    he is just demonstrating his credibility with GOP base.

    It's kind of like lying on your resume when applying for the press secretary job.

    "Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor liberty to purchase power." B. Franklin

    by istari5th on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:45:03 PM PDT

  •  asdf (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L, JeffW

    Great diary, but I think we don't even have to explain all that much even though it is really simple.

    I often think the smartest thing to do in a situation like this is oversimplify the matter not to the other party's benefit.  Then you can just stand back and watch them try to explain how it's not really that bad.  Example:

    John McCain can't be trusted because he's breaking the campaign laws right now.

    Let them explain about all their tricksy crap because the more they talk, the guiltier they look and you just stand back and look more and more credible.

    Kid Zemo

    No one in the world ever gets what they want and that is beautiful. Everybody dies frustrated and sad and that is beautiful.

    by Kid Zemo on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:45:07 PM PDT

    •  write it up and send it! (0+ / 0-)

      yeah, shorter is better.  your one-liner is a great summary.  add a fact or two and you've got a pithy letter to the editor, of the kind they like because it's really really short.  so send it in!

      i put in the summary here to make it convenient for people to review the facts that the RWCM is going to leave out of this discussion over the next week as they make this the next flap.

      it's our job to get those facts back in the conversation, either in LTE's or standing around a saturday BBQ.

      l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

      by zeke L on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:51:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thank you (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L

    I've been bitching about this very thing for months...thanks for diarying it.

    "McCain '08 - Bullshit you can Believe In".

    by Roddie Stimmings on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 01:47:22 PM PDT

  •  This issue definitely (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L

    needs to be publicized more. I'd guess most people, outside of us political junkies, have never heard of it. Obama's campaign needs to start hammering on it.

    •  but they will hear about this (0+ / 0-)

      "obama backs out of public financing" half-truth.  with mccain painted as the genuine reformer saint.

      you better believe this will be the main topic of campaign discussion for the next week.  just check the GOP pundits like david brooks et al. and you'll see the whole league has been issued this as their talking points.  

      and don't expect tweety or the ghost of tim russert to bring up the inconvenient truth of mccain openly cheating the rules either.

      the only way the non-junkie 99% hear about it is if we force it into the dialogue.  

      and believe it, this will be the topic. the FISA betrayal of the rule of law will go into the friday night newshole, because neither the GOP nor our capitulationist democrats are served by reminding the people that they believe big telcos are above the law.

      instead, it'll be another week of obama-bashing in the RWCM's ceaseless effort to sell us saint maverick-mccain.

      l'audace! l'audace! toujours l'audace!

      by zeke L on Fri Jun 20, 2008 at 02:12:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Flabbergasted at Chris Matthews last night (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    zeke L

    The way you explain, a 10 yr old should understand it, but not Chris Matthews. I was practically pulling my hair out when I watched the repeat at 7. Five minutes later, Keith and Howard Fineman were spot on in their commentary about the pledge,particularly what you said about McDole breaking the law.

    Not surprised the NYT got it wrong, they and their WH overlords have been screwing the country since 9/11. Judith Miller? Need I say more?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site