Can McCain blow off the Federal Election Commission?

February 26, 2008

I’ve been following John McCain’s travails with the Federal Election Commission with great interest, in part because the senator seems to want to pick a fight with Barack Obama over their relative commitments to public financing, and in part because it’s a rather blatant example of McCain blowing off the rules — Bush/Cheney-like — the moment they became inconvenient.

Admittedly, it can get a little confusing. It’s why I thought I’d refer readers to Josh Marshall’s overview of the controversy today, which is quite good in summarizing what the controversy is all about. If you’ve been confused about what’s up, or need a refresher before the story gathers steam, this is the clip you’ve been waiting for.

Yesterday, the McCain campaign — or, more accurately, it’s lawyers — followed up with the FEC, basically making the argument, “We don’t need your stinkin’ campaign-finance rules, man.”

After McCain told the FEC that he could withdraw from the public-financing system whenever he wants, whether the FEC likes it or not, Paul Kiel explained:

To recall the stakes: the public financing system for the primaries entails a $54 million spending limit, an amount that McCain has pretty much already spent. If the FEC were to decide that he could not leave the program, it would be an incredible problem for his campaign.

Of course, the chances of the FEC of doing anything are zilch right now, because David Mason, the Republican chairman, is one of only two commissioners. Four nominees are stuck in the Senate because of the fight over Hans von Spakovsky. But Mason has written the McCain campaign to tell them that McCain cannot withdraw from the program without the FEC’s say-so, since McCain effectively entered into a contract when he opted in to the program last year.

I assume the whole mess would end up in court — if the FEC had enough active members to actually meet and agree to offer instructions to their lawyers.

This one’s going to linger for a while, and if campaign reporters are paying attention, McCain’s image of a reform-minded, straight-shooter who plays by the rules will probably never be quite the same again.

McCain cheats on Campaign Finance? Amazing!

Should any Democrat agree to meet with this guy?

  • So, Bush stomps his feet in the new old conservative way, refusing to compromise, and disables a government institution. And another conservative comes along and takes advantage of it. I guess this is what conservatives mean when they say ‘government is the problem.’

    When will America realize that it makes no sense to entrust people with control of government who don’t believe in government? There are REASONS we have institutions. They may not be perfect but most serve a purpose, but the FEC obviously won’t even have a chance in this case.

  • Of course, McCain (or anyone) can blow off the FEC.

    It will take years to get a decision and either President or Senator McCain will pay a fine if he loses.

    It will only make a difference in the election if Obama can figure out a way to convince some swing voters that this should be an issue.

  • It will make another nice ad, though. McCain co-sponsored the McCain-Feingold bill, which states … Then after signing onto public financing, he borrows against it, he gets onto ballots in several states without signatures, depriving candidates who followed the rules of delegates. Then after they drop out, McCain disregards the law and the advice of the FEC Chairman. Do we really want another President who thinks the laws don’t apply to him?

  • I think the fact that the Republican head of the FEC is basically saying McCain is a crook should make for a good Obama advertisement or two. Maybe neil wilson doesn’t think election law is important, but a lot of people do, probably because unlike neil they have brains in their heads.

    I think McCain’s banking on the details of the crime being too complicated for the average American to wade through, but all the Obama camp has to do is point to the Republican commissioner of the FEC, and point to Bush (who kneecapped the FEC). Bush’s credibility is thereby tied to McCains (again) and we all know how Bush’s credibility is doing lately.

    The other thing I would say is that this kind of crime might not be punished in the conventional sense, but it will fire up the grassroots on the Dem side, which will do a lot of good things. McCain might regret his rule breaking when millions of people send checks to his opponent.

  • As I said on an earlier post today, I really wish Democrats would stop being so damn defeatist. Who cares if the FEC enforces this? It’d be nice, but it’s the scandal that will get McCain. He’s Mr. Straight Talk Reformer. For him to even be associated with this kind of thing looks horrible, and even a BJ from the media on it won’t help. As long as they cover it at all, it’ll stay a story and hurt McCain. And in that respect, it’s actually better that the FEC can’t go ahead and make a decision; especially as they might rule in his favor.

    People might not understand what the scandal is about, but they’ll understand that there’s some scandal. People expect scandals from Bush, but McCain’s supposed to be a Boy Scout. A complicated campaign finance scandal will surely taint his reputation. And the more his supporters get twisted in knots trying to explain why he didn’t do anything wrong, the better. That’s how politics work. Dems just need to make sure we don’t let the story get away.

  • Paul Kiel explained:

    “…David Mason, the Republican chairman, is one of only two commissioners. Four nominees are stuck in the Senate because of the fight over Hans von Spakovsky. But Mason has written the McCain campaign to tell them that McCain cannot withdraw from the program without the FEC’s say-so, since McCain effectively entered into a contract when he opted in to the program last year.” (from Paul Kiel)

    Let’s see … McCain breaks the rules that everyone else has to follow, and then he gets to keep what he gained by breaking the rules after paying a modest fine.

    Wouldn’t that be called “Amnesty”?

    Don’t Republicans get irate when people are given “amnesty” after they break the rules?

    Or is it that Republicans only get irate when brown skinned people are given “amnesty”?

  • If there really is a God, this should be the moment that IOKIYAR meets the end of the road. No wonder the Mittster is thinking he may be able to un-suspend his campaign. For once, may the rule of law actually apply!

  • […] this is the clip you’ve been waiting for. — CB

    Nope, it’s not. This “camera-reporting”, that Marshall has grown so fond of recently, is one of the reasons I visit TPM less and less these days. I don’t process audio info as well as I do visual (text). That’s one of the reasons I don’t watch TV, don’t listen to Obama’s speeches (like him very well without), don’t watch candidate debates, and prefer foreign films with subtitles.

    It’s also one of the reasons I’ve always liked your blog for offering two options: the clip and the transcript.

  • How much more clear cut can hypocrisy get? McCain is flagrantly violating “McCain-Feingold”!! and ignoring the dictates of the republican chairman!

    I think while the DNC is waiting for Obama and Clinton to shake things out, they should get some ads about this on the air…

  • Republicans don’t have to follow the law, they are the law. The craporate media will ignore this like they have been ignoring the crooked and corrupt Bush administration.

    Of course, if this was a Democrat doing this, we would hear it blasted all over TV and radio all day and night.

    • Comments are closed.