Monday, October 20, 2008
Why John McCain Still Drives Conservatives Nuts...
On Fox News Sunday, McCain had this to say about Barack Obama's amazing fundraising haul:
Obama, following the rules, has raised this huge amount of money partly through methods pioneered by McCain himself. Don't forget, McCain was the original Internet-fundraising candidate back in 2000. Amazingly, at a moment when the the US has racked up record debt, Obama declines to take $84 million dollars from the taxpayers, preferring to take money from individuals voluntarily giving it.
But, that very idea is anathema to McCain. He sees a problem in need of "fixing." Funny, the constraints his own law created caused him to start playing fast and loose the rules when he came perilously close to the pre-convention spending limits.
Consider the implications of McCain's statement. A record amount of Americans choosing to give a record amount of money to a candidate they support (much of it in small donations) is ipso facto evidence of a likely scandal. But, of course, at the heart of McCain-Feingold is a belief that money -- in the political process -- is an inherently bad thing.
Remember once again, McCain became such a crusader when he, personally, was corrupted by Charles Keating. Because McCain showed weakness in the face of temptation, everyone else -- including innocent Americans who happen only to be "guilty" of being inspired by a candidate -- must be considered "suspect" in a likely future "scandal," the only evidence of which is that Obama raised a heckuva lof of money. Yet, this is a "problem" that needs to be "fixed." So, for those watching, this again sends the message : Politicians screw up, the public pays the price.
UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini piles on -- he also predicts that Obama is on track for a $190 million-plus haul in October. On "This Week" yesterday, my old boss also Newt had fun at the irony of McCain being laid low by McCain-Feingold.
|
Senator Obama raised $150 million in — I understand, during the month of September, completely breaking whatever idea we had after Watergate to keep the costs and spending on campaigns under control — first time, first time since the Watergate scandal.And I can tell you this, that has unleashed now in presidential campaigns a new flood of spending that will then cause a scandal, and then we will fix it again.
So, the man who brought us McCain-Feingold is at it again!
Obama, following the rules, has raised this huge amount of money partly through methods pioneered by McCain himself. Don't forget, McCain was the original Internet-fundraising candidate back in 2000. Amazingly, at a moment when the the US has racked up record debt, Obama declines to take $84 million dollars from the taxpayers, preferring to take money from individuals voluntarily giving it.
But, that very idea is anathema to McCain. He sees a problem in need of "fixing." Funny, the constraints his own law created caused him to start playing fast and loose the rules when he came perilously close to the pre-convention spending limits.
Consider the implications of McCain's statement. A record amount of Americans choosing to give a record amount of money to a candidate they support (much of it in small donations) is ipso facto evidence of a likely scandal. But, of course, at the heart of McCain-Feingold is a belief that money -- in the political process -- is an inherently bad thing.
Remember once again, McCain became such a crusader when he, personally, was corrupted by Charles Keating. Because McCain showed weakness in the face of temptation, everyone else -- including innocent Americans who happen only to be "guilty" of being inspired by a candidate -- must be considered "suspect" in a likely future "scandal," the only evidence of which is that Obama raised a heckuva lof of money. Yet, this is a "problem" that needs to be "fixed." So, for those watching, this again sends the message : Politicians screw up, the public pays the price.
UPDATE: Patrick Ruffini piles on -- he also predicts that Obama is on track for a $190 million-plus haul in October. On "This Week" yesterday, my old boss also Newt had fun at the irony of McCain being laid low by McCain-Feingold.
Labels: fundraising, John McCain, McCain-Feingold
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Two "Perfect" General Election Opponents
Talk about two candidates that deserve each other: The holier-than-thou Frick and Frack of "reform" -- Barack Obama and John McCain. Obama, this morning, announced -- to the surprise of no one -- that he would opt out of the public campaign finance system -- the first general election candidate to do so since the post-Watergate laws were written:
Anybody who has been paying attention should hardly find this surprising. The man has been averaging about $30 million just this calendar year with a fundraising machine for the ages. He's drawn this from a record 1.5 million donors -- most of whom are giving in small donations, thus allowing him to go back to that well over and over again. No one should begrudge that Obama has completely rewritten the rules of what is possible.
That said...Obama, who is all about integrity and "change you can believe in" made a promise months ago that he would abide by the public financing rules for the general election.
Except, of course, when it is too difficult to say no to the more than $250 million (conservatively estimating) that he can raise himself.
Of course, this would be a perfect "gotcha" for Mr. Campaign Finance Reform himself, John McCain. Except for two things. 1) His campaign finance rules helped create the situation in which we are in now. He first pioneered Internet fundraising in 2000. Then got his campaign finance law passed in 2002, pushing so-called soft money out of the system -- and strengthening the hand of candidates who could raise lots of money in small donations (such as on the Internet). Howard Dean took that idea it to another level in 2003 -- and Obama pushed it into another galaxy in the current cycle.
McCain's people called foul on Obama:
And don't think Obama's people will point out McCain's inconsistency on his pet issue. Their campaign will take the brief hit from the media and various good-government groups and then just roll on raising oodles of money. As the saying goes, it's better to apologize than ask permission.
Meanwhile, McCain will, like it or not, be forced to take the passive assistance of various GOP-connected 527 groups -- which McCain hates -- who will raise money separately to run negative ads against Obama, separate from the official McCain effort.
As a result, this will create a situation where the two presidential cycles post-McCain-Feingold will each set records in total spending.
As I said before, two perfectly suited holier-than-thou candidates going at it.
UPDATE: ABC's "The Note" expertly critiques the politics of Obama's move -- with a line that's just gotta hurt some of the liberal partisans out there:
|
"It's not an easy decision, and especially because I support a robust system of public financing of elections," Obama wrote. "But the public financing of presidential elections as it exists today is broken, and we face opponents who've become masters at gaming this broken system.""Not an easy decision"? Please.
Anybody who has been paying attention should hardly find this surprising. The man has been averaging about $30 million just this calendar year with a fundraising machine for the ages. He's drawn this from a record 1.5 million donors -- most of whom are giving in small donations, thus allowing him to go back to that well over and over again. No one should begrudge that Obama has completely rewritten the rules of what is possible.
That said...Obama, who is all about integrity and "change you can believe in" made a promise months ago that he would abide by the public financing rules for the general election.
Except, of course, when it is too difficult to say no to the more than $250 million (conservatively estimating) that he can raise himself.
Of course, this would be a perfect "gotcha" for Mr. Campaign Finance Reform himself, John McCain. Except for two things. 1) His campaign finance rules helped create the situation in which we are in now. He first pioneered Internet fundraising in 2000. Then got his campaign finance law passed in 2002, pushing so-called soft money out of the system -- and strengthening the hand of candidates who could raise lots of money in small donations (such as on the Internet). Howard Dean took that idea it to another level in 2003 -- and Obama pushed it into another galaxy in the current cycle.
McCain's people called foul on Obama:
Jill Hazelbaker, the McCain campaign’s communications director, said later on a conference call with reporters: “The true test of a candidate for President is whether he will stand on principle and keep his word to the American people. Barack Obama has failed that test today, and his reversal of his promise to participate in the public finance system undermines his call for a new type of politics.” She added, “This decision will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system.”Yeah, right, yada yada yada. It's tough for McCain to go around calling Obama a hypocrite, when he's played fast and loose with FEC campaign finance regs himself:
By signing up for matching money, McCain agreed to adhere to strict state-by-state spending limits and an overall limit on spending of $54 million for the primary season, which lasts until the party's nominating convention in September. The general election has a separate public financing arrangement.Of course, McCain has benefited from the FEC's continued lack of a quorum, so he's going on like his opt-in/opt-out do-si-do is fine and dandy. The fact remains, even if the FEC decided to side with McCain, he's certainly violating the "spirit" of the laws that he himself has been insisting that candidates adhere to.
But 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.
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.
And don't think Obama's people will point out McCain's inconsistency on his pet issue. Their campaign will take the brief hit from the media and various good-government groups and then just roll on raising oodles of money. As the saying goes, it's better to apologize than ask permission.
Meanwhile, McCain will, like it or not, be forced to take the passive assistance of various GOP-connected 527 groups -- which McCain hates -- who will raise money separately to run negative ads against Obama, separate from the official McCain effort.
As a result, this will create a situation where the two presidential cycles post-McCain-Feingold will each set records in total spending.
As I said before, two perfectly suited holier-than-thou candidates going at it.
UPDATE: ABC's "The Note" expertly critiques the politics of Obama's move -- with a line that's just gotta hurt some of the liberal partisans out there:
Maybe we had it wrong from the start: It's Barack Obama who is running for George Bush's third term, while John McCain just might be pursuing John Kerry's first.Not on policy, of course (not that Team McCain would much mind that perception these days). But in approach, in temperament, in stability, in take-no-prisoners mindset -- inside which campaign would Karl Rove recognize a piece of himself?
In the one with tightly controlled access, the jugular-aiming (drama-free) political shop, and the temerity to cast aside a fundraising pledge en route to breaking all campaign-finance records?
Or the one with rolling press conferences, scattershot messaging (with missed zingers), and complaints about the other side not playing fair?
We have found the new politics -- and it can spend half a billion dollars to win an election.
There's a signal here that Bush campaign veterans can appreciate: Obama made a coldly calculating decision based on a desire to win. He tossed aside a pledge rather than throwing away the single biggest advantage he enjoys over his rival.
Sounds about right. (h/t, Eric Pfeiffer at Congressional Quarterly).
UPDATE II: For those curious about the extent of Obama's "promise" on agreeing to public financing, read this W. Post analysis from February. While it's true he always kept the "weasel" language of "aggressively pursuing" an agreement on public financing with his eventual Republican opponent, he 1) Answered a candidate questionnaire clearly that he would stay with public financing and 2) Certainly didn't sit down with the McCain campaign in any serious way since Hillary Clinton conceded.
Labels: Barack Obama, campaign finance reform, John McCain, McCain-Feingold
Monday, June 25, 2007
Free Speech Wins...And Loses
The exact same 5-4 Supreme Court split managed to get only one free speech case right today.
By partially overturning McCain-Feingold restrictions on advocacy ads right before an election, the SC -- basically the five conservative justices -- got it correct. It upheld the right for anti-abortion groups to run ads urging listeners to "call their senator."
The Bush administration filed briefs in support of the restrictions (not surprising, given that Bush signed the bill into law, but sad nonetheless).
Unfortunately, the conservative majority got it wrong on the other case -- ruling against a student who unveiled a sign that said"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" -- off school grounds (though on the other side of the street) during a rally for the Olympic torch relay. The principal of the high school saw her students with the sign, ripped it away and suspended the student who came up with the idea. The student claimed that this was a violation of his free speech.
The court basically said that students do not have a free speech right to say something that constitutes support for illegal drug use:
The principal is described almost like a law-enforcement or military officer derailing the actions of a terrorist. As if an Olympic torch relay event could somehow be "disrupted" by the appearance of a seemingly pro-drug banner.
As many have observed in the past, the war on terror is the fraternal twin to the war on drugs: Two invidious siblings happily destroying the American family's rights.
UPDATE: Ryan Sager collects a number of responses to the McCain-Feingold pushback (i.e. Wisconsin Right To Life)
|
By partially overturning McCain-Feingold restrictions on advocacy ads right before an election, the SC -- basically the five conservative justices -- got it correct. It upheld the right for anti-abortion groups to run ads urging listeners to "call their senator."
The Bush administration filed briefs in support of the restrictions (not surprising, given that Bush signed the bill into law, but sad nonetheless).
Unfortunately, the conservative majority got it wrong on the other case -- ruling against a student who unveiled a sign that said"Bong Hits 4 Jesus" -- off school grounds (though on the other side of the street) during a rally for the Olympic torch relay. The principal of the high school saw her students with the sign, ripped it away and suspended the student who came up with the idea. The student claimed that this was a violation of his free speech.
The court basically said that students do not have a free speech right to say something that constitutes support for illegal drug use:
Roberts said that Frederick was indeed at a school sponsored event and his sign while cryptic" could reasonably be defined by Principal Morse as "promoting illegal drug use."Note the language that SC Chief Justice John Roberts uses, "when [the student] suddently and unexpectedly unfurled his banner, [the principal] had to decide to act -- or not act -- on the spot."
Roberts wrote: "School principals have a difficult job, and a vitally important one. When Frederick suddenly and unexpectedly unfurled his banner, Morse had to decide to act -- or not act -- on the spot."
Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in dissent agreed that the principal should not be held liable for pulling down Frederick's banner but that the school "cannot justify" it's punishment of Frederick for an "ambiguous statement to a television audience simply because it contained an oblique reference to drugs. The First Amendment demands more, indeed, much more."
Lawyers for Morse had argued that she was responsible for "maintaining order and proper decorum" at a gathering outside of the school. In briefs her lawyers argued, "She responsibly took the appropriate action to ensure that the Olympic torch relay event was not further disrupted by Frederick's pro-drug banner."
The principal is described almost like a law-enforcement or military officer derailing the actions of a terrorist. As if an Olympic torch relay event could somehow be "disrupted" by the appearance of a seemingly pro-drug banner.
As many have observed in the past, the war on terror is the fraternal twin to the war on drugs: Two invidious siblings happily destroying the American family's rights.
UPDATE: Ryan Sager collects a number of responses to the McCain-Feingold pushback (i.e. Wisconsin Right To Life)
Labels: free speech, McCain-Feingold, Supreme Court, war on drugs, war on terror
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
"Reform"=Failure
Ryan Sager examines the McCain-Feingold record after five years.
|
Labels: campaign finance reform, McCain-Feingold
