When last we left the Federal Election Commission, the lights were on but no one was really working.  Four of the six commissioners' nominations expired at the end of 2007, leaving the the Commission shy of a working quorum as Democrats remained steadfast that odious nominee Hans von Spakovsky receive a separate up-or-down vote, which Senators on both sides of the aisle recognize would sink his nomination, which is why Sen. Mitch McConnell refused to go along with it.

[A full FEC has six Commissioners, with no more than three allowed from any political party.  It takes four votes for it to do anything.]

Time marched on.  The FEC has been unable to investigate important complaints which have been filed, but it has also been unable to release John McCain from the public financing limits per his request.  It would also be difficult for McCain to then receive public financing for the general election come September should there not be a functioning Commission to administer the program.  

And, in the meantime, former FEC Chairman Bob Lenhard, a Democrat who'd have no trouble being re-confirmed, withdrew his name from re-nomination last month because of the delays.

The solution would seem simple: have Bush replace von Spakovsky with an acceptable nominee, end the logjam and move on.  But, of course, that's not how it works.

Instead, the White House has kept von Spakovsky's nomination and located two new Republican nominees for vacancies on that side of the aisle -- NRCC lawyer (and former lawyer for Rep. Tom DeLay) Donald McGahn and Caroline Hunter, who has sat on the Election Assistance Commission despite having no relevant experience previously.

This, however, required jettisoning Commissioner Mason, who had been a seriously roadblock to McCain's scheme to evade the public financing limits and whose confirmation was assured.  Sen. Reid is, understandably, miffed.

[On the Dem side, Commissioners Ellen Weintraub and Steven Walther will remain; Lenhard's slot would be filled by Cynthia Bauerly, Sen. Schumer's legislative director.]

Democracy 21 president Fred Wertheimer, our frenemy, has this to say:

The White House dumped Mason after President Bush had twice proposed Mason for the FEC in the last two and a half years, in December 2005 as a recess appointment and in January 2007 as a nominee to the FEC for Senate Confirmation.

The only apparent reason for President Bush to drop Commissioner David Mason at this stage, an FEC candidate he had twice proposed for the Commission, is to prevent him from casting an adverse vote against Senator McCain on important enforcement questions pending at the Commission. The questions deal with Senator McCain’s request to withdraw from the presidential primary public financing system and the consequences of a loan the McCain campaign took out and the collateral provided for the loan.

Under these circumstances, President Bush’s dumping of Mason can only be viewed as a bald-faced and brazen attempt to wrongly manipulate an important enforcement decision by the nation’s campaign finance enforcement agency.

The White House action today represents the political equivalent of obstruction of justice.

Noted Democratic election law attorney Bob Bauer weighs in:

The reason for the White House to act now is to restore the FEC to full voting power, which is not usually a Republican priority but now serves the immediate need of giving Senator McCain the most direct, statutorily routine access to public funding for the general election.  In this one move, the White House ended McCain's accountability for his use or abuse of the primary public financing system while putting him in position to take money for the general.  

For this maneuver to have been arranged for the benefit of Senator McCain, of all people -- the John McCain who has regularly, severely criticized the FEC as a "corrupt" agency -- is a remarkable turn in his career as a reformer.  A Commissioner who acted to enforce the law, to just raise an important question of enforcement, has been stripped of his post.  This was clearly in Senator McCain's interest, this raw power play.  It is also in his interest to have the FEC, back in business minus Mason, arrange for his money for the fall campaign.  

It is inconceivable that McCain was not informed of the plan.  In fact, it is highly probable that he was in involved in its formulation or its approval.  In the days ahead it will be seen whether he will be asked about his role.

It is an obvious question and a fair one.  This development at the FEC, after all, is one of kind.  For all the time that McCain has savaged the performance of the FEC, he has led the sizeable crowd of critics who believed that the agency is too beholden, on the whole, to the narrow interests of parties and their candidates.  Yesterday, Republicans could not have acted more narrowly in just this vein:  effectively firing a Commissioner to immunize their Presidential nominee from enforcement action in a pending case but making sure that there is enough of an agency left to get him the money needed to finance his campaign.

I should note that Commissioner Mason was strongly on the netroots' side throughout the whole debate over regulating political activity online, and I always found him to be a decent, sincere man, whatever differences we may have had on other issues.   During those 2005 hearings, he dressed down then-IPDI head Carol Darr on the whole question of who should receive the protection of the "media exception" from campaign finance law, explaining why bloggers merited equal treatment in a way that any of us would agree with:

I think part of the reason is a lot of us kind of don't understand your point or your concerns, so I want to probe it a little bit and first starting from the Internet and one of the first major Internet decisions, which was about protecting pornography, of all things: the Supreme Court celebrated the fact that on the Internet, everyone can be a publisher, and they said this is a great thing. And a lot of us looked at it, and we say this is a great thing. So from the supply side, if you will, what is the problem if lots of the things on the Internet are judged to be publications, just like traditional?

And from the other side, you know, we look down; General Electric, which may be, what, the second biggest corporation in the world owns, you know, big media; Cap Cities, Disney, Murdoch, Time-Warner; I mean, you know, these are -- if you want to talk about holes in the corporate prohibition, these are huge. And as you have suggested, they are limited in some ways by some professional standards, but what we've heard from the Internet people is you have not only the sort of professional obligations of a lot of the sites but their credibility; in other words, the social pressure within the Internet itself to police activity. So I guess I just don't understand what you're concerned about losing by a broad expansion of the media exemption to Internet activities.

But there is good news, if this NYT report is credible: "The White House declined on Tuesday to withdraw Mr. Spakovsky’s nomination, but a spokeswoman, Emily Lawrimore, said Republican officials were now willing to allow each of the nominees to be voted upon separately."

If that's the case, we might actually have a functioning FEC before the Fourth of July.

update: Never mind the alleged good news; McConnell still says no separate vote on von Spakovsky.

Surprisingly (at least to me), I haven't seen this diaried.  To me, this seems huge.

According to Politico as posted on the Yahoo news front page, John McCain had decided to accept public financing for the general election.  See
http://news.yahoo.com/...

I think this is likely to place McCain at an insurmountable disadvantage.  With Obama's demonstrated fundraising ability, he is now likely to be able to outspend McCain by about 4 to 1 in the general election.  Of course there will be the 527s and the RNC to contend with, but in a national election, money talks and Obama's got a huge megaphone.

The Obama campaign is starting to make the argument against taking public financing.  How do you feel about Obama's argument? From Tapper:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/...

Last night at a political fundraiser Barack Obama dropped a strong and I would argue well reasoned point in the ongoing debate of whether to go public or not vs. John McCain in the General.

"We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign they can get on the Internet and finance it, and they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally been reserved for the wealthy and the powerful," Obama said.

I think he has a definite Point There.... Publically Funded Elections derive their money from the $3 check on the IRS Tax Filling Forms.  I don't see a huge difference morally between that and $96 average donations from 1.2M+ Donors.

What do you think?  I find it very hard to believe anyone would vote against Obama for this very reason... if anything opting out will give him the resources to draw in more turn out, and that would certainly eclipse any purists lost due to a stance like this.  

When John McCain ran for president in 2000, I will admit that I was impressed with his rhetoric. I know in this polarized time where people think of issues only in terms of Democrat and Republican that may be hard to believe, but I really thought he could be a guy who was serious about limiting the influence of money in politics. But as I say in my newspaper column out today (available for podcast here), by the time he hit Denver last week, I knew I was duped - and I know I was duped because I've seen him over the last few years become one of the most corrupt, flip-flopping politicians in America.

On April 2, 1987, Sen. John McCain and four other US Senators met with federal regulators and tried to strong arm them on behalf of a contributor, Charles Keating Jr., who running an Arizona real estate business and the Lincoln Savings and Loan. The senators, soon to become disgracefully known as the Keating Five, were all investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee. McCain was close to Keating, and Keating and his associates donated $112,000 to McCain's campaign.

So as McCain embarks on his Bio Tour, why isn't Room 328 of the Hart Senate Office Building -- where the meeting took place -- on his list of places to visit? And given that the Keating Five scandal was what McCain attributes for his shift on campaign finance reform, why has McCain distanced himself from the two major pieces of legislation to overhaul federal election laws on this campaign?

Markos announced the complaint against John McCain yesterday, and I've tried to explain the details of McCain's machinations over the past month.  Let's jump to the end of the Complaint for more:

Senator McCain has simply announced his unilateral plan to ignore the spending limits that he agreed to, in writing, in August 2007....

As documented in extensive detail by the Democratic National Committee ("DNC") in its complaint to the FEC on February 25, 2008, Senator McCain did, in fact, obligate matching funds as security for private financing for a $4,000,000 line of credit from Fidelity & Trust Bank.  Therefore, even if the FEC could consider Senator McCain's request to withdraw from the matching fund program, that request would not be granted because he pledge the certification of funds as security for a loan to his campaign.

At the time that the DNC filed its complaint, it was not yet clear whether Senator McCain had, in fact, violated the spending limit based upon disclosure reports that covered the period through January 31, 2008.  On that report, Senator McCain had already spent approximately $49,600,000.
                     
Now, though, it's clear that the McCain Campaign has violated the spending cap.  On March 20, 2008, Senator McCain's campaign filed its March Monthly report covering the period from February 1, 2008 through February 29, 2008.  That report disclosed that Senator McCain's campaign has, as of February 29, 2008, in fact, exceeded the $56,757,500 spending limit.  As of February 29, 2008, Senator McCain has disclosed spending $56,916,682 in connection with his quest for the Republican Presidential nomination (A copy of the relevant pages of Senator McCain's report is attached to this complaint).  Of course, Senator McCain appears poised to spend tens of millions more between now and the Republican National Convention in connection with his primary campaign in direct violation of the spending limits that he agreed to abide by during the primary election period.  Ultimately, it is quite conceivable that Senator McCain may spend in excess of $100,000,000 on primary expenses during the period defined by federal law for qualified primary expenses.  Thus, it is likely that Senator McCain will exceed the primary spending limit by $40 million dollars or more.
                     
For the reasons stated above, the FEC should (1) find reason to believe that Senator John McCain and the McCain Campaign have committed, a violation of Chapter 96 of Title 26 and of the Commission's rules, and should conduct an investigation; and (2) pursuant to 26 U.S.C. §9040(c), petition the appropriate U.S. District Court for injunctive relief to implement and enforce the provisions of Chapter 96 against Senator McCain and the McCain Campaign.

For the non-lawyers: "injunctive relief" means "stop him".  Force him to abide by the caps and stop spending money. Period.  Christy Hardin Smith explains the procedural posture:

As you likely know, the FEC is stymied at the moment due to the Bush Administration trying to shove Hans Von Spakovsky and all of his "caging" and other alleged nefarious campaign activities onto the election commission as a GOP dirty tricks ringer.  Because the Democratic-led Congress said "no way" to Hans being voted through in a bloc vote, the Administration and their pal, Mitch McConnell, have balked at any FEC commissioner vote in the Senate.  Which means that in this very important 2008 election cycle, the FEC is unable to act promptly to enforce the campaign finance laws.

But here's the deal: even with the FEC impotent (a situation which can change at any time), federal law allows complainants to file suit in federal court 120 days after filing a complaint if the FEC hasn't acted.  For the DNC complaint, that's June 24, 2008; for today's complaint, if my math is right, July 24, 2008.

Please join the list of progressive activists who have signed onto this complaint, and spread the word.

John McCain's not going to be bothered by anything like campaign finance rules. Limits aren't for this maverick.

John McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system, according to spending reports filed last week by the campaign.

The senator from Arizona has spent $58.4 million on his Republican primary effort. Those who have committed to public financing can spend no more than $54 million on their primary bid.

Oops! But never mind, when you're a maverick, the spending limits don't apply. At least that's what McCain's lawyers say. See, McCain was all for public financing of his caampaign before he was against it. He says that he withdrew from the public matching fund. There's just this little problem with the FEC who has yet to grant his request to withdraw because they don't have enough information about that $4 million loan he took out against the collateral of public funds. The DNC still has a pending complaint against McCain on that issue.

For the first time in a decade there is a democratic challenger in VA-6 in the form of a hard working small business man from Roanoke.  Sam Rasoul has been campaigning hard for fourteen months, through over 400 events already.

He spent the 2007 cycle down-ticket campaigning, supporting Democrats throughout the sixth CD with volunteer support, earning him the 2008 Grassroots Award at this year's JJ dinner as well as the Most Valuable Democrat Award from the Botetourt County Democrats.

I recently joined Sam's campaign to lend my skills and experience to his message of attacking the corruption from its roots.  Sam speaks passionately about getting the lobbyists and PACs out of the drivers seat and putting the people back in control of their congress.  He has refused to take money from PAC's and Lobbyists and will work his tail off to get publicly financed elections.  He is a strong supporter of HR 676 and understands the problems facing small businesses and what we need to do to get the American education system back on track.

Below is our weekly newsletter, emailed out today (and reformated for DKos).  Please take the time to read more and learn about Sam and why you should support his campaign.

According the NYTimes, the Clinton Camp has raised a record (for them) amount of of 35 million dollars!!!!!!  However the according to experts the Obama campaign is claiming to have raised more than the previous record of John Kerry's 44 million in the 04 race, with a staggering amount of 50+ million dollars for Feb.  So the Clinton camp can now take home a moral victory in getting over the 30 million dollar club for the month.  But it should be a short celebration when your opponent raises 50+ million in a short month....  Plus he didn't have to loan himself 5 million dollars.....  

Here is what Obama said with respect to public financing:

If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

Here is what the "liberal" New York Times said he said:

If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

The Times article does not quote Obama's actual statement, nor does it link to it. Instead, it continually mischaracterizes it.

It's clear that John McCain used his "opt in" to public financing for his campaign to get on the ballot in Ohio and Delaware, and there is still a fight going on in Indiana.

But did he do this anywhere else?

I'm going to check here in Nevada, but would urge others to check their state's rules to see if McCain pulled a fast one.

Overall, I think Obama is doing a great job tonight. I thought his response to the question of the opposition to the war was a grand slam.

That being said, I think that he missed a serious opportunity when he answered the question about his alleged "pledge" to public financing. To be honest, he flubbed the question. It was one of the few times tonight where he has basically dodged the question and it was blatantly obvious. Unfortunately, he missed a golden opportunity to take sledgehammer to John McCain...

"Creative Financing", otherwise known as gross malfeasance, is the open, runny chancer sore on the face of the Republican party.  Creative financing has put millions in the pockets of the attorneyed classes, robbed directly from the pension funds and taxes of the little people.  It has fueled gross corruption, destroyed innocent lives, has sent our whole economy into a recession.  It is also the last defense for John McCain in his attempts to back out of a bank loan which he took freely.

Here's his latest defense:

The loan documents specifically state that the collateral did not include McCain's right to the public funds. But the agreement with Fidelity & Trust Bank of Bethesda, Md., required him to reapply for matching funds if he withdrew from public financing and lost early primary contests.

In other words, the Bank gave McCain a loan based on documents that attempt to re-define what "Collateral" means.  

John McCain the reformer?  How can a man who doesn't grasp the criminality of Enron be expected to attack this insidious rot at the heart of America's economic institutons?

McCain's bad week just keeps getting worse.

According to the Washington Post

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 interesting thing is that McCain has already spend $49 million of the $52 total allowed until the convention.  This could hugely undermine his ability to campaign.

Discussion and poll below the jump.

I suppose this won't come as that big of a surprise, but still, wow.  After posting a record $36 million in January, Obama advisers are signaling they will raise more then $50 million in February - while some are projecting more than $60 million.

Marc Ambinder has the story here.

More below the fold...

We just discovered the only way to get the change we want, force them to give it to us. As many of you are well aware, the FEC currently lacks a quorum because Senate Democrats have been unwilling to confirm one of the President's nominees and he has said all are nothing. As a result, we have been locked in stalemate. How do we have a chance to break the stalemate? Keep refusing to confirm them, follow me below the fold for more.

Here is another fine example of the crooked-talk express in action.  Last year, when McCain was in the pits, his aides were fleeing and he had no money, he opted into the public financing system.  Now the presumptive nominee, he wants out.

Not so fast, says the FEC:

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...