Are we saying that McCain "may" have broken campaign finance law because the FEC has done nothing about it?

Are you surprised?

Bush has committed war crimes and he's still a free man.

Is MM serious?!?

The media has given Obama a total pass on his lie/broken pledge!

Look at how Obama's west-coast media arm, the Los Angeles Times, covered the issue: http://patterico.com/2008/06/20/the-power-of-the-jump-la-times-buries-and-waters-down-evidence-that-obama-actually-broke-a-public-financing-pledge/

There was no "broken pledge".

You're kidding, right?

Actually, my question was more out of curiosity then outrage or disbelief. I  would genuinely like to know if the FEC is the going to do anything about this, and if not, perhaps there is a legal reason why they aren't, which means McCain is off the hook (I guess?).

It has something to do with no having enough members to vote so technically McCain will get away with this as much as the media allows it.

only two of the FEC’s six seats are now filled. That leaves the panel two votes short of the four needed for a quorum, rendering it mostly unable to act

So is he breaking the law, yep

Will anything be done about it, nope

And where is the easy response against a so called fiscal conservative that wants a 84 million dollar handout to run his campaign?  We need to hammer him on this quicker

You're right that McSame needs to be hammered on this, but I have a problem with framing public contributions as a handout. That frame of hand-outs, government dependency etc. only feeds the misguided conservative worldview that government is the problem.

Obama has come out and criticized the public finance system as a broken one. I think that's an effective counter but it is not quite enough, yet.

Can you think of another way to hammer McSame without feeding the conservative narrative of, "gubmint bad for peepul?"

But see that's exactly the point...

Making conservatives fight for things they rail against proves they are hypocritical.  It's like this week when TV personalities begrudged Obama that his supporters removed a woman with a head dress from the back of the stage at a photo op...as if they wouldn't have plastered 24/7 that image of Obama and someone "muslim looking" across the SCLM.  Forcing conservatives to address that misguided fears of supporters have sprung from vitriolic, and discriminatory news coverage...not the other way around.

In this circumstance let's see McCain explain why he needs that 84 million if he's so fiscally conservative, granted it's that little checkoff on the registration card, howvever it is still that sacred public money they always crow about.  Make McCain funds himself privately with as few  special interests as he can afford while Obama hammers him in the fund raising department with millions of individual small and large donors.  Then we get to hammer McCain for taking the special interest money.

If decent ideals are gonna get slung through the mud anyways...we might as well do the slinging

your point, however, is well taken RH

I know what you mean

I know ya get it. And I'm seeing your angle, too. I like it. It affirms what we already know about McCain's lack of principles on the issues.

He talks about getting the government out of people's lives. All the while he's been inviting government into his personal life from the time he was a wee lad, suckling at the teet of daddy's GI health plan, to the time he was accepting help, as himself, a soldier; all the way to now, as he wants the people's money to help him again. He wants government to work for him but he doesn't seem to be willing to let government work for us.

"And where is the easy response against a so called fiscal conservative that wants a 84 million dollar handout to run his campaign?  We need to hammer him on this quicker"

I have no love for McCain, nor any desire to seem him President...but this is ridiculous.  There's no difference between getting money from the public directly for a campaign, and getting it indirectly.  Except that the indirect route has limits on it and the direct one, while regulated, has no ceiling in total contributions.

Personally, I don't think there's any NEED to "hammer" him on this.  That he doesn't think he can raise enough money directly is telling enough!

That it is "telling enough" is not telling enough!

Right now the McMedia is smashing Obama with this while the problem is really with McCain...he needs the public's money right now while the public is already handing Obama all the cash he needs in donations.

The election is won and lost on the narrative...sad but true, it needs to be controlled lest it get out of hand

"The election is won and lost on the narrative...sad but true, it needs to be controlled lest it get out of hand"

I agree it needs to be controlled...but there are LOTS of better things to bash McCain about than public financing.  That they are having to try to push it as Obama "going back on his promise" is something that is MUCH more in need of addressing and pushing back on. 

Let McCain get his money where he can...and Obama will do the same.  There's no law that says it has to be the same source...thank heaven.  I think there's going to be a great opportunity - closer to the election - to hit McCain like they did Kerry, when he doesn't have enough money to respond effectively.  As long as they can hit him with something that is true - I say, GO FOR IT!

No, I think it's important to debunk the narrative that McCain is this honorable reformer. Campaign finance is the corner stone of his rehabilitation from Keating 5 criminal to Man of Integrity (and Maverick). But it's all a sham, and people should know it.

Didn't some pundits a few months ago remark about how noble it was for McCain to want to opt out of public financing, because now he would be spending his own money, and "not taxpayers?"

Some good news: Abrams at MSNBC has been nailing McCain on hypocrisy the last two days-- with truly nitwit Repubs as sounding boards... who, BTW, now always refer to Obama as "Barack Obama," without exception. They make sure they emphasis the first name. 

It's actually worse than that. McCain took advantage of being in the public program not just to get funding, but to bypass certain states' requirements for getting on the ballot in the first place. Being in the public program is a short-cut to ballot credentials.

So he took advantage of both aspects of the program in order to stay in the race, then ignored it when he needed to spend more money.

"For that matter, given that McCain is running as someone with a commitment to "reform" and a record to back it up, the media should -- but do not -- examine the actual results of McCain's legislative efforts."

Perhaps they did/do and that is why they stay mum about it? 

The corporate owned media decided back in 1994 (You remember that grand idea "Contract with America") to go to bed with the RNC, with only an occasional sleep over with the DNC!

My guess is during one of those few sleep overs they were able to convince Bill Clinton to pass that horrible Telecommunication Act of 1996 so that they then can have fewer sleepovers at the DNC and spend more time sleeping with the easier paid for RNC?

But I digress, well done Mr. Foser outlining another example of just were We the People stand in the eyes of the media and the RNC.

I just heard NPR's Scott Simon (who I have great respect for) chiding Obama for something he said by way of explanation of his decision. Apparently, last evening (Fri 6/20/08), Barack said something to the effect that he couldn't risk limiting his spending when 527's and other McCain-supporting groups would run attack ads against him.

Simon homed in on Obama's suggesting that ads might say, after listing "concerns" about him, "and, by the way, he's Black." Simon chided him for suggesting that McCain, of all people, might use Obama's race against him. He said that such tactics wouldn't work in today's America, anyway.

Geez. He failed to note that:
1. Such tactics might not be used by McCain per se,  but by his surrogates. Dubya, after all, wasn't the one who swift-boated Kerry.
b. Rather than being as pure as the driven snow, McCain has often shown himself to be as pure as weeks-old snow by the side of a big-city road.*
gamma. Attack ads have begun, by "independent" groups, against Obama.
iv. Race-baiting, unfortunately, still does work. Witness the "call me" ads against Harold Ford. Witness the demonstrated fact that voters have expressed an unease with Obama because of his race.

I was disappointed with Scott Simon for this commentary. If someone with his skills has been so taken with the McCain myth, how can we expect the rest of the media to report him objectively?

* Explanation for our Florida and other Southern brethren and cistern: despite the great photos you've seen of pure, white, beautiful snow, after a few weeks it can get...well...rather skanky. It sucks up the carbon emissions and gets sprayed with dirt, mud, and sand, and eventually looks quite grodish indeed. Sometimes yellow snow would be an improvement.

I posted earlier about NPR and in listening to "All Things Considered" found that they ran a segment interviewing Sam Brownback, a segment about the headscarf apology, but no interview with anyone with the Obama campaign.  This was last Wed. I think.  Obviously not all things were considered, unless I missed something.

I have very little respect for Scott Simon.  He often produces commentaries that have very little to do with a fair assessment of the facts.  His comment this morning about Obama was a dreamed up argument about Obama's playing the race card - something that wasn't even an issue in Obama's explanation.  The fact that people like this have so much ability to sound off on public radio is very upsetting.

I agree with Senator Obama's decision to opt out of public financing. In 2004, while the Kerry campaign had to be silent for a month before the Democratic convention, Republican 527 groups pounced with their Swift Boat ads. This cannot happen now because the response will be swift. Since Democrats have a big financial advantage this year, we should press the attack and destroy all Republicans. The fewer Republicans, the better for America.

That sounds a little crazy. I know you aren't coming here trying to push eliminationist rhetoric, right?

Why don't you explain in calm terms what you mean by destroying Republicans.

I disagree that we should destroy all Republicans.  We need opposing groups in this country.  We need both sides to police and limit the extremes on the other side.  It has been demonstrated that one-party rule (no matter which party) cannot possibly be counted on to police and/or limit itself.

Had Obama said "I didn't love America", the MSM would be relentless in their criticism of him

He is being held to a higher standard fot the simple fact he is half Black.  NO one questions the minor distractions of McCain, of which he's had many, to the depths and everlasting air and written coverage as they have Obama.

Claiming they don't know him.  They don't want to know him.  His website is chock full of information regarding his position on every matter of importance to this country.  Rather than read, many would chose to remain ignorant and vote based on color.

Pathetic!

One of the posts here criticized McCain for taking from the GI bill and other resources for veterens.  This kind of talk is wrong and self-defeating.  Dems can apply the Rove playbook to use the candidates strengths as weaknesses, i.e., McCain as straight-shooter who connives on campaign financing is a good one.  But McCain as welfare queen is stupid.  He gave our country all but his life in Vietnam.  We were so rightly offended by the Rovian disrespect for veterens like Kerry.  Let's not plow the field for their next crop against one of our future candidates.  Veterans of Iraq I and II will be running for office soon.

Also, Obama is right to change his mind, but I don't understand the hoopla.  Is there a quote out there of Obama "promising" to take federal money or just saying he will?  Isn't the point of this option that it boosts weak campaigns that need the money and are willing to follow the restrictions to get it?  Why would a strong campaigner take federal funds, limit his/her campaign, when he/she has such a following that obviously wants to win?  You have to play to score.  We have too many examples of good Dems that never got elected because they lacked campaign skills.  Our response to critics of smart campaign strategy should be "f**k off, when Rove did it, you said he was a genius!"

Welfare queen my ass. That frame is stupid and wrong and not at all the point made.

"He talks about getting the government out of people's lives. All the while he's been inviting government into his personal life from the time he was a wee lad, suckling at the teet of daddy's GI health plan, to the time he was accepting help, as himself, a soldier; all the way to now, as he wants the people's money to help him again. He wants government to work for him but he doesn't seem to be willing to let government work for us." Roundhouse.

Let's see, where did I go wrong here...?  Sorry, Roundhouse, this looks like a complaint that McCain has "suckled" enough and needs to let the rest of us have a chance.  I fully support the GI bills, my wife's education was one result after her father was deprived of all livelihood be diseases earned in a career with the U.S. Air Force.  McCain's "help" as a soldier surely must have been warranted by his service, which was exemplary, although I think less heroic soldiers deserve as much.  Finally, the federal campaign fund seeks to remedy a truly serious problem, just not all that well - so I agree with it, as well. 

But I get your point, that he got his.  So how does that stop you from getting your due? 

A better appraoch would be that the federal government can do certain things no one else and needs to do them well.  Just what these are is part of this election. But, while skewering McCain for not caring enough, not understanding, or not being willing to sacrifice his conservative credentials is probably good; diminishing his military service because he got aid when he needed it, is a sure loser with most moderates and all conservatives.

 

The MSM is bending over backwards trying to make JohnnyMac something that he isn't.I can't wait for the debates to begin.

Also a little off topic I would like to see a poll of the most dissapointing politician in this current cycle.My vote goes to Nancy Pelosi.

All of Obama's hundreds of millions of dollars cant do as much damage to McCain as one low cost attack ad by a 527 picked up by the media and ran time after time, day after day, week after week FOR FREE like the swift boaters. The RNC will match Obamas millions if added to McCains 84 mil (as the DNC is almost broke, as usual) and spending will be about equal. The key to the race is the 527's and the creativity of only a few.