Bloggers File Fundraising Complaint Against John McCain

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:55:00 PM EST
Tags: John McCain (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake filed a fundraising complaint against John McCain yesterday with the FEC.

Yesterday, on behalf of a large number of progressive bloggers and activists, Jane went to the FEC and filed an official complaint against John McCain's alleged campaign finance violations. We've been asking a lot of questions about this, and the answers have been less than forthcoming. So, instead of just sitting here and stewing about yet another GOP ethical problem, we decided to put our action where our concerns were.

....As Markos of DailyKos pointed out in joining the complaint, “John McCain has officially blown past campaign spending limits mandated by his original acceptance of public campaign funding. While he has signaled his intent to withdraw from such financing, that has been hindered by the fact that he used the promise of public funding to secure a campaign loan.” Guess the campaign finance laws only apply when they aren't inconvenient for McCain's ambitions.

McCain will be fundraising in Denver tomorrow. [More...]

Progress Now and other local activists held a press conference today about his fundraising:

Organizations joined together today for a press conference in advance of Senator John McCain's upcoming fundraiser Thursday at the Petroleum Club in Denver. The groups unveiled an eight foot golden oil rig with a sign "Is McCain for Sale?" and called on McCain to justify his rhetoric about standing "for the American people" by immediately returning all oil PAC money.

"We call on McCain to end his hypocrisy and return all oil PAC money immediately," stated Michael Huttner, Executive Director of ProgressNowAction, with over 350,000 online members is Colorado's largest progressive online organization.

Check out their fact page on John "McBush" McCain.

If you'd like to be a signatory on the bloggers' complaint, here's how, from Christy:

You can join in, too -- sign your name to the complaint here. At that link, you'll find a copy of the FEC filing and a list of signatories thus far. And help us get the word out on the need for McCain to be held accountable for any violations of the law that has his own name on it....and any other laws of which he may be in violation.

< Race-Free Open Thread | NBC/WSJ Poll: Oversampling >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Bloggers File Fundraising Complaint Against John McCain | 58 comments (58 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

FireDogLake... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:00:43 PM EST

is a great blog. I'm glad to see some serious movement in the blogosphere against McCain. There page currently has a refreshing balance of McCain/Dem Primary stories. I think it's a very healthy balance over there.

Good stuff.

They used to be even more balanced.... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:04:26 PM EST

...but now they act as if they've never even heard of Hillary Clinton. I guess that's better than bashing her 24/7 like Kos and TPM.


: Another old favorite (none / 0) (#58)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:43:54 AM EST

I deleted from my favorites list.

: FireDogLake (none / 0) (#61)
by proseandpromise on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 06:53:16 AM EST

had a prominent article on the front page about Richardson hypocrisy, hardly a bastion of bias.

*their...I need to proof read. n/t (none / 0) (#3)
by proseandpromise on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:01:59 PM EST

Playing with fire? (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by davnee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST

Will this come back to bite Obama when he inevitably reneges on his pledge to go the public financing route? Or is this instead the groundwork being laid for justifying his reneging? You didn't play by the rules so I'm free to violate my pledge because I can't trust you? That sort of thing. Sorry the cynic in me can't help but see this as more about clearing Obama for unlimited spending in the general than it is dinging McCain, although it is a ding of course.

I'm not against Obama doing this at all, but I would point out that it is playing typical politics rather than embracing a new politics of reform. I do however wonder if McCain can turn this back by saying I was trying my best and fell short of the mark, but at least I gave new politics a try unlike my opponents. We'll see.

What does this have to do with Obama? (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by rebrane on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:21:54 PM EST

The issue is that John McCain is currently in criminal violation of the campaign finance law which he authored.


I thas everything to do w/Obama (3.66 / 3) (#14)
by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:25:58 PM EST

or Kos wouldn't be part of it.


I second that. (none / 0) (#21)
by TalkRight on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:02:00 PM EST

they are trying to tear McCain now to make an impression that any of the two democrats will be viable.


: This move is eerily reminiscent of (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 05:25:00 PM EST

Obama's IL senate race; challenging the signatures.

Just pointing out the secondary benefit (none / 0) (#15)
by davnee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:28:52 PM EST

to Obama that this potentially gets him off the hook for his campaign finance pledge. A hook he desperately wants to get off.

And this story is about more than expenditures, it is also about groups going after McCain's PAC money. That is a danger area for any pol to cast stones. Not that he shouldn't cast the stone if it is to his advantage, but he should make sure his glass house has been stone-proofed first.


: Maybe (none / 0) (#17)
by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:32:10 PM EST

Except no politition is throwing stones here. Progressive Blogs are. They don't actually work for any politician.

: that is what Obama camp is doing with FL/MI (none / 0) (#31)
by TalkRight on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:38:33 PM EST

just point that it would be advantageous to Hillary that this potentially gets him off the hook for his refusing to get the re-votes in FL/MI

Maybe it's a twofer.... (none / 0) (#6)
by Maria Garcia on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:14:25 PM EST

Which is okay by me. Glad to see them going after McCain in any case.


Twofer yes, but still playing with fire. (none / 0) (#12)
by davnee on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:22:43 PM EST

I always get a little worried about candidates grousing about the campaign ethics of others since that is just an engraved invitation to be hoisted on your own petard. Obama has been making electoral hay out of his (misleading) argument that he is not in the pocket of lobbyists. Dude has taken a ton of money, just like Clinton and McCain. Always dicey for a "new politics" candidate to essentially dare the other candidates to prove that he is down rooting in the old politics mud with the rest of them, thus making fools of his "change" voters all along.


I agree with this. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by dk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:30:49 PM EST

The problem is also that since the credibility of the vast majority of the left blogosphere is pretty much gone, knowing that bloggers like Kos are a part of it makes one skeptical as to the merits of their arguments.

It's sad that is the case, but the fact is that we have to look at people's past records of credibility. The argument may end up holding up in court, but knowing that Kos and friends are making it makes me, unfortunately, less likely to believe it.


: I got (none / 0) (#59)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:50:27 AM EST

an email from firedoglake and kos yesterday and promptly unsubscribed from any further emails. I had deleted firedoglake from my favorites but forgot to unsubscribe.
If Jane has allied herself with kos then I will judge her by the company she keeps. Lay down with dogs, you get up with fleas.
Alienating a good share of the left will have consequences.

McCain's got lobbyists on the (none / 0) (#29)
by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:18:32 PM EST

Straight talk Express.

can we say in their pocket?

oh its rich fodder for a campaign flyers.
He's so blatant! that JMc.


I wish (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Lil on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:19:00 PM EST

I wish the left had spent more time going up against McCain and less time tearing down one of our candidates. Eventually one would win and she/he would have been very thankful that we held the fort, while our party took care of business. I think that was a lost opportunity of the left blogs, with some exception, of course. Good for Firedoglake on this one.

: Thank You! (none / 0) (#28)
by Claw on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:16:42 PM EST

We should all be going after McCain. I will vote for the dem he/she. As should we all. Anything that exposes misdeeds, etc. on McCain's part is A-Okay in my book.

I could have sworn that the bank McCain (5.00 / 2) (#13)
by Anne on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:25:29 PM EST

got the loan from produced a letter in which it stated that McCain did not put up future public funds as collateral, but maybe I am mistaken.

Complicating matters is the fact that there is no quorum at the FEC to hear or decide these questions, so while I applaud the action to file the complaint, I expect it will go nowhere in time to result in McCain's campaign suffering any meaningful consequence.

Honestly, truly (5.00 / 4) (#18)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:33:42 PM EST

when I saw that DailyKOS was involved, I just rolled my eyes. I don't take them seriously at all anymore.

They've turned me off completely. (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Boston Boomer on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:07:06 PM EST

I deleted my e-mail from Kos.


They're involved (none / 0) (#19)
by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:34:33 PM EST

They're not the only ones though....


True (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:50:29 PM EST

but, for me, they give it an air of invalidity.


: Huh? (none / 0) (#43)
by manys on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:14:11 PM EST

What does "air of invalidity" mean? It looks like it's supposed to sound smart, but I can't figure it out.
Nobody's participation in the complaint changes any facts.

Wow (4.00 / 1) (#50)
by squeaky on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:01:26 PM EST

How is any of this about Obama, kos or fdl? This is about McBush/McSame Mr Straight talk hypocrisy and breaking the law.

Big difference, imo.

I got my first ever e-mail from Kos (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 03:59:20 PM EST

anouncing this complaint. Very tempting to push "reply," but I didn't.

John McCain needs to be vetted (none / 0) (#10)
by CST on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 04:21:13 PM EST

Glad to see it starting now.

: But will the Media do its job? (none / 0) (#51)
by Christopher MN Lib on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:17:49 PM EST

The media has done nothing but cheerlead for McCain. Every Republican who endorses him is some big news. Never any scrutiny always pandering. It could be argued that the media is what pushed McCain over the edge in the weak field for the Republican nomination. Maverick this, comeback that, and it's all garbage. Obama and Clinton need to know this well because the media I don't think is going to vet McCain; not voluntarily anyway.

well I am not sure how far (none / 0) (#26)
by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:12:12 PM EST

this can go as there are vacancies on the board and w/o a quorum.
Thank the Bush White House. Its either our candidate or none at all.
This is yet another cloud on JMc.

the significance of this is that he got a pass in some of the states to bypass requirements to gather signatures to be on the ballot. Big problem for JMc.

why did they even mention DK (none / 0) (#27)
by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:14:23 PM EST

Jane should of gotten sole credit.

Well gosh (none / 0) (#30)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:33:12 PM EST

either of you actually got a link?

Here: (none / 0) (#32)
by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 07:48:24 PM EST

NYT EDITORIAL

P.S. I'm not one of "either of you" though!


I meant (none / 0) (#33)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:05:45 PM EST

a link regarding the nature of McCain's loan.


: Can't help you there. (none / 0) (#34)
by oculus on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:16:24 PM EST

Sorry - here's this (none / 0) (#36)
by Anne on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:56:31 PM EST

McCain collateral

And a snip from it:

Lawyers for the bank said in their own letter Monday that the loan agreement was carefully drafted to give McCain the opportunity to withdraw from public financing during the primary elections. They said the loan terms specifically excluded from the collateral any potential share of public matching funds McCain was entitled to receive.
Potter, a Republican appointee to the commission, submitted the bank lawyers' letter to Mason. One of those lawyers, Scott E. Thomas, is also a former FEC chairman and Democratic appointee to the panel.

I can't see how there can be a claim of violation if the bank says the promise of federal funds was not collateral.


Well (none / 0) (#39)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:09:34 PM EST

Understand that the bank is not a neutral party here. They have a business relationship with McCain and they do have an incentive to try and spin things in his favor.

That said, I'm open to the idea that the complaint is meritless. But here's a key passage from the article you linked:

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.

Think about the latter part for a moment. If the public funds weren't a material part of the deal, why would the loan agreement REQUIRE him to apply for them?


Good question (none / 0) (#44)
by Anne on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:21:46 PM EST

And not one I know the answer to.

Let me follow what looks like the scenario the bank describes: he gets the loan so he can keep going. He withdraws from public financing. He then loses a bunch of early primaries, so presumably he has a harder time raising money, and there is less chance he can pay back the loan. So, the bank says, in order to protect their loan, he has to reapply for matching funds. Is this collateral by a different route?

I don't doubt that McCain's people wanted a loan that would not preclude him from withdrawing from public financing, but I think the truth is that unless and until there is a quorum at the FEC, all of this is going to be over before there is a decision on whether he has violated the regulations.


: Well (none / 0) (#46)
by Steve M on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:32:24 PM EST

It's technically not "collateral" because the bank doesn't have a legal right to seize the funds if he defaults. But they're ensuring that he's going to have a source of funds in place, from which he'll hopefully repay them. Presumably the bank believes McCain is a good credit risk - as long as he has enough money to pay them back, that is.
The argument is that he wouldn't have been able to get the loan, but for the bank's knowledge that he'd have the matching funds available if necessary. That's not really provable either way, but the fact that the agreement expressly requires him to apply for the matching funds lends credence to the theory.
With no quorum, it's a moot point, as you suggest. Even with a quorum, this is a "spirit of the law" question that would probably be a political decision in any case. It's not like the FEC consists of a bunch of impartial philosopher-kings.

Let Me Get This Straight; (none / 0) (#35)
by Winghunter on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 08:35:35 PM EST

The DailyKos is pretending to whine about ANYONE elses ethics!?!?

Bwaa-haa haa!

"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child - miserable, as all spoiled children are, unsatisfied, demanding, ill disciplined, despotic, and useless. Liberalism is the philosophy of sniveling brats." - P.J. O'Rourke

: Going back to school (none / 0) (#41)
by manys on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:11:17 PM EST

Have you heard of something called "the fallacy of perfection?" How about "ad hominem?"
Does DKos' participation in this complaint somehow change the facts of McCain's financing? No.

: I didn't think so in the past (none / 0) (#53)
by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:34:41 PM EST

but considering some of the behavior I've witnessed this year, it appears P.J. had a point.

Lost credibility (none / 0) (#40)
by SeaMBA on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:10:52 PM EST

I saw that the email was supported by Kos and Moveon. I responded that both had lost my faith. Moveon in particular.

Right. (none / 0) (#42)
by manys on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:12:17 PM EST

Which means McCain should be able to do whatever he wants with regards to financing. Genius.


Abolutely logical! (5.00 / 1) (#45)
by A DC Wonk on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:23:39 PM EST

Of course. Jane Hamsher and Markos go after McCain, so what do Hillary supporters here do? Attack Markos and Obama for it.

But, hey, sorry to interrupt this circular firing squad. . . .

(Gee, and we'll see McCain get elected, and wonder what happened . . . . )


: A couple of comments (none / 0) (#57)
by standingup on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 12:18:47 AM EST

are hardly representative of Hillary supporters here. That's not a fair statement. Plus there has been a flurry of Obama supporters coming over from Dkos and other sites the last few days with the intent of agitating the situation.
It would be nice to have you and some of other Obama supporters who engage in civil and rational discussions around more, in my opinion.

: Absolutely typical (none / 0) (#60)
by kenoshaMarge on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 05:57:50 AM EST

Of course all evil comes from Hillary Clinton and all problems come from her supporters. If you are so concerned about McCain then why not try doing whatever it is you deem best about any of his perceived wrongdoings instead of using this issue as another chance to take a swipe at Hillary supporters?
What we do or do not support should not concern you. Using every issue, every topic, every post as a chance to try and insult Hillary supporters in some way is a concern for many of us. And it is in part a reason, even if not a good one, that many of us do not want to be a part of anything that comes from a Hillary-bashing blog like kos. But you know that. You just want another excuse to point out some real or imagined fault in those that support Hillary Clinton.
It's easy for me and has NOTHING to do with Obama. It has everything to do with my complete and total disdain for all things kos and moveon.

Reading this board... (none / 0) (#47)
by mbuchel on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST

...makes me wonder if you guys are democrats any more, but rather Clintoncrats. You guys talk about the Obama "cult", but listen to yourselves!
You're giving McCain a pass as he violates a law that he SPONSORED, and instead spinning it into slams on Obama. Give me a break!
You may have your disagreements with Obama, but this is beyond lunacy.


I agree completely (none / 0) (#52)
by fuzzyone on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:29:47 PM EST

Its amazing. Even though I'm an Obama supporter I liked this board becuase I don't agree with some of the rabid stuff on Kos (though on non-election matters there is still plenty of good stuff there). But this thread is off the wall. Dems should attack McCain early and often, it has nothing to do with Kos or Obama. Get a grip people.


: When you attack, you should make it real (none / 0) (#54)
by RalphB on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:37:16 PM EST

or you'll just wind up being laughed at. Then when something real does come up, no one will pay attention. Crying wolf :-)

you people have lost the ability (none / 0) (#55)
by thereyougo on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:44:51 PM EST

to exchange ideas, something DK and Obots have become, that is no longer a community. Thx to Kos himself.[rolls eyes]

you're all spinning like tops. Get off already. sheesh.

Talkleft is about honestly examining the topic of the thread. Its about mc cain. We try to be civil here.


Um (none / 0) (#64)
by manys on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 02:17:10 PM EST

You should take your sarcasm detector in to the shop, it apparently requires repair.


Given that the FEC cannot muster a quorum (none / 0) (#48)
by riddlerandy on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:00:46 PM EST

the complaint will likely sit in a drawer somewhere

So the grand total (none / 0) (#49)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 10:00:52 PM EST

So the grand total of public financing actually accepted was $0.00. Hmmmm this seems like a fairly big tempest in a tiny weeny teapot.

if i were sen. mccain, (none / 0) (#56)
by cpinva on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 11:08:18 PM EST

i wouldn't exactly be trembling in my nikes over this. if the FEC runs true to form (and there's no reason to believe otherwise), we'll all be dead and dust by the time they get around to investigating and issuing a ruling.

I have not looked at all of McCain's filings (none / 0) (#63)
by Augustus on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 11:12:17 AM EST

But I would like to know what the amount of the public funding was that he has accepted. I'm not sorry that the effects of his personal Campaign Finance legislation is giving him a problem. It would be great if anyone here can help me find out how much public money the McCain campaign has taken so far. Everyone posting here seem to think that this is a sure thing violation. Kos sure is on it and seems as happy as if a Bill and Hillary sex tape was found. How big a load was it that McCain took from the public finance trough?

: Zero (none / 0) (#65)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Thu Mar 27, 2008 at 08:12:38 PM EST

$0.00