How McCain Is Skirting His Own Spending Caps »
Posted By ybdogsct 12 months ago in NewsEven though McCain has agreed to an $84.1 million spending cap by accepting public funds--a decision he likes to portray as a principled stand against the corrupting influence of money on politics--at least double that sum will be spent on his behalf thanks to loopholes in the law that allow largely unregulated "soft money" contributions.
Read Full Story at blog.newsweek.com »
660 Views Share Story 40 Comments Report
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 242 of 244 Comments (view all)
-
0%
not2needy12 months ago
Can you just imagine what he will be like in a debate? It's going to be downright pathetic.
Reply-
-
0%
libsRfunny12 months ago
"Can you just imagine what he will be like in a debate? It's going to be downright pathetic."
Yes, Obama has proven one thing: he can't work without a script, and even then he sticks his foot in it.
As for this story, it's hilarious! Obama has lied and gone back on his word so many times in recent months -- including public funding for his campaign, it's laughable to see the Dems whining about the RNC having more cash than the DNC.
Little wonder why the Yalie who posted this one continues to ignore Obama skirting his own "lobbyist funding" policy by accepting nearly $15 million from law firms and attorneys representing federal lobbyists and having federal lobbyists work on his campaign.
Reply -
0%
Lurch12 months ago
> Can you just imagine what he will be like in a debate? It's going to be downright pathetic.
I might get Tivo or a DVR just so I can go back and count how many times and ways he flip-flops, most flip-flops per minute segment, ave flip-flops per babble, and so on.
Reply
-
-
0%
Gransater12 months ago
It simply bogles one's mind, reading about the amount of money spent to "buy" a political office.
The more the people are exposed to commercials about a certain candidate, the more they become influenced by it.
It appears in many ways that it is no longer a matter of electing who's best for the office, but to elect who has more money to change minds.
It sure would be refreshing to see an election with a cap on spending, regardless of where the money comes from.
Reply-
0%
bubba212 months ago
Over a year ago, I heard or read an article about the amount of money spent on political campaigns.
The article was estimating that by the time the 2008 Presidential election was over - for all of the politicians that campaigned for the nomination - that ONE BILLION dollars will have been spent on that election alone.
It does INDEED boggle the mind ...
Reply
-
-
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
http://www.blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/arch...
"OnMessage Inc. rolled out a series of pro-McCain, anti-Obama ads. The campaign - a perfect example of how the distinction between McCain and the RNC is irrelevant - aired the same (misleading) message McCain's campaign delivered in a spot last month.
The RNC can invest unlimited sums of money in commercials like this, since GOP donors can each contribute $28,500 to the national party--or about $25,000 more than Dems can give directly to Obama.
Meanwhile, the McCain campaign is stepping around federal spending limits by funneling cash through the state and national party machinery - and benefiting from donations to non-RNC organizations. As the Wall Street Journal reported last Thursday, the Republican Governors' Association, a GOP group unrestrained by federal spending limits, is now 'marketing itself as a home for contributions of unlimited size to help Sen. McCain.'
Reply -
-
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
Although individual contributions to election campaigns are supposed to be limited to $2,300, Team McCain is soliciting checks of up to $70,100 from each donor -$28,500 for the RNC, $40,000 for a quartet of state parties, and $2,300 for the candidate himself. But with the RGA, even that $70,100 ceiling on individual contributions would be shattered.
The NRA plans to spend about $40 million, with $15 million of that devoted to portraying Obama as a threat to voters' Second Amendment rights.
The irony here, of course, is that it was McCain who co-sponsored the 2002 law meant to curtail the influence of wealth on presidential politics by limiting direct donations to the campaigns. Now he's the one's doing everything imaginable to circumvent the very caps he fought to create."
Reply-
0%
Lurch12 months ago
What exactly do you think these ultra-wealthy donors are getting in exchange for their mega-contributions?
There is only one goal behind blowing $70K plus on a losing horse, high-risk, high reward. Meaning they expect and will demand huge payback out of taxpayer/consumer funds if McCain wins.
Reply
-
-
0%
Aidenag12 months ago
It's a shame McBush has resorted to misleading the public about his own campaign financing, and then bashing Obama for not taking public funds.
This right here, IS the reason Obama did not take public funds. He has to compete against the GOP machine that churns out money through shady loopholes all day long.
Reply-
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
Bingo.
Obama declined public funding to even the playing field against the soft-money raised by the RNC and other organizations that are "independent" in name only.
Public funding may have limited McCain and Obama to an $85 million spending cap, but it would have done nothing to limit soft-money. And the RNC raises far more soft-money from its big-dollar donors than the DNC.
This is precisely why I support Obama's decision to forgo public funding. McCain likes to claim that accepting public funding represents his stand against the influence of lobbyists, PACs, and money in elections, but the truth is that McCain only accepted public funding because:
1) McCain is an AWFUL fundraiser and wouldn't have raised more than $85 million in direct donations anyway.
2) Soft-money from the RNC and nominally-"independent" organizations would more than compensate for the difference between Obama's and McCain's fundraising.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
McCain adheres only to the letter of his new campaign ethics rules, while violating the spirit of HIS OWN rules. How does McCain take a stand against the influence of money when McCain:
I) has lobbyists as top donors and advisors for his campaign?
II) accepts money from lobbyists and PACs?
III) accepts unregulated soft-money from the RNC and nominally-"independent" organizations?
The problem with public funding is that the laws McCain helped pass are not strong enough to prevent special interests from influencing campaigns. In fact, since the money Obama and McCain choose to forgo, by limiting themselves to public funding, will have to be raised a different way, special interests may end up having an even MORE profound influence on political campaigns by donating soft-money to the national parties and committees (which are regulated by looser limits) rather than donating to the campaigns themselves (which have stricter limits).
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/ar...
"In his early efforts to secure the support of the Republican establishment, McCain has embraced some of the same political-money figures he pilloried during a 15-year crusade to reduce the influence of big donors, fundraisers and lobbyists. The contrast between McCain the presidential candidate and McCain the reformer can be jarring.
McCain the candidate now expects Republicans to use the same big-money 527 groups in the 2008 elections to beat Democrats. McCain the candidate has enlisted some of the same GOP fundraising giants who created and flourished in the soft-money system, including Bush's fundraising 'Pioneers' and 'Rangers,' who earned their designations by raising at least $100,000 or $200,000 for his campaigns. McCain's finance co-chairs have given at least $13.5 million in soft money and 527 donations since the 1998 election."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/mccain...
"The RNC Skirts Intention of Public Financing:
McCain's new fund structure will allow the McCain camp to collect significantly more money than the individual limits placed by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/may/28...
"Sen. John McCain, who championed a law imposing strict new political contribution limits, is appearing at fundraisers nationwide where donors can give up to $70,100 each to help him win the presidency through a group set up jointly by his campaign and the Republican Party. This tactic exposes how easy it is to raise money from donors even if they already have given the maximum amount of $2300 to the presidential campaigns allowed under a law that Mr. McCain helped enact."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/19/new-mc...
"John McCain's campaign has devised a new system to increase the maximum amount an individual can donate to the unofficial Republican nominee's election efforts. The idea is to tap donors for more than the $2,300 limit set by campaign finance laws. Under legislation pushed by McCain in his role as a senator from Arizona, an individual can donate a maximum of $2,300 to a presidential primary campaign and the same amount to the general election campaign.
Campaign manager Rick Davis released the details of the 'McCain Victory 08' fund on Friday. He said the entity is a joint committee, combining the McCain campaign, the Republican National Committee and four key states under a 'hybrid legal structure.' The new structure allows up to $70,000 in individual contributions by channeling the money into different McCain-centric funds."
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
By rejecting money from PACs and federally-registered lobbyists and by forcing the DNC to do the same, Barack Obama is abiding by the spirit and intention of the public financing laws that seeks to minimize the effects of corporate PACs, lobbyists, and special interests. That is because even though Obama will formally eschew public funding, Obama's campaign was largely funded by personal, small-dollar contributions from voters rather than from corporate PACs, lobbyists, and interest groups.
Obama's campaign is, in spirit, publicly funded BY THE PUBLIC, not by the government.
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/feb/14/nation/...
"Obama raised $27.2 million in donations of $200 or less in 2007."
Meanwhile, although McCain can claim that he accepts public funding, his campaign is actually being funded by lobbysits and corporate interests, since McCain accepts cash from the RNC, which accepts money from PACs and lobbyists.
Reply -
-
0%
libsRfunny12 months ago
"It's a shame McBush has resorted to misleading the public about his own campaign financing, and then bashing Obama for not taking public funds.:
It's a shame Obama lied about accepting public funding and misleads fills like Aidenag and the Yalie by accepting millions in contributions from law firm s and attorneys representing federal lobbyists.
How's that glass house treating you boys? LOL
Reply
-
-
gbilly08Comment removed: User banned.11 Replies
-
-
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners12 months ago
So good to know Obama has faith in campaign finance reform, well, but not this time though. Maybe in 2016.
Reply -
-
-
0%
Spadecaller12 months ago
We deserve better than what McCain has to offer as a candidate, because his loyalty is not to this nation. He is loyal to those that pay his way; the lobbyists and profiteers.
His campaign is founded on the politics of destruction. As one journalist recently stated, "even the McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the McCain of 2008."
Reply-
0%
wtagg12 months ago
"even the McCain of 2000 wouldn't vote for the McCain of 2008."
Unfortunately true. I would have easily voted for McCain in 2000. He apparently learned much in the SC primary of what was necessary to get elected. That is a shame.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners12 months ago
I was just fishing the other day and I caught 2 fish. One flipped and flopped all over the place like McCain. The other one had an eerie resemblance to Obama and just laid there like he was dead. We cooked the McCain fish but buried the Obama one in the garden because it looked like we could get poisoned by it.
Reply
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners12 months ago
Wouldn't it be great if we could outlaw McCain's making use of the loopholes? Then Obama could way outspend him because of his tremendous fund raising ability. McCain spending $84.1 million and Obama spending $300 million ? would be fair because we all know Obama is good and McCain is bad, and as was stated, the more money spent on ads the more people can be convinced to vote for a candidate, regardless if he is good or bad. As far as Obama deciding to renege on his promise to stay within the $84.1 million, well, why should he when he found out he could raise more on his own? The idea is to get elected, not to keep promises or stand on principles.
Reply-
0%
wtagg12 months ago
"because of his tremendous fund raising ability. "
Ironically, the attribute that got Bush elected in 2000 and 2004 is suddenly not a good thing. It's the goose and gander world.
"The idea is to get elected, not to keep promises or stand on principles."
Now this has a large foundation of truth. Are you voting on principle and promises? Or are you voting for one of the two main candidates?
You are doing an awful lot of whining about the fund raising ability of one of the candidates.
Reply
-
-
soniyashrmaComment removed: User banned.8 Replies
-
0%
tiredofwhiners12 months ago
I am considering changing and voting for Obama. I don't particularly like McCain anyway because he is/was too liberal. I'm not saying Obama has flip-flopped but he has recently "changed" his postitions and is now almost the same as McCain. And he is a great speaker if his writers can keep up the good speech writing, McCain isn't. He is now eschewing the public spending limit, is now in favor of expanding Bush's policy of funneling public funds to religious organizations for social spending, now supports the overturning of the D.C. gun ban, has abandoned his vow to filibuster the electronic wiretapping bill if it gives immunity to telecommunications companies, supports the death penalty for child rapists. He is much like McCain now. All he has to do is promise to support offshore and Alaska oil drilling, speak out against illegal immigration, keep Bush's tax cuts and he will have McCain beat. None of that is flip-flopping, it's "making change we can believe in".
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
0%
tiredofwhiners12 months ago
I forgot one. Obama originally said during the primaries that he would get our troops out of Iraq (within 16 months of his becoming President). That was an unequivocal statement with a timetable. Great! Now he says, of course I would confer with the Iraqi government and our military leaders including Petraeus. And he now says he wouldn't withdraw until Iraq is secure and our troops can be withdrawn safely. He now "believes" that it can be done in 16 months but no guarantee now (repeating the "16 months" is to provide some kind of beleivability/consistency). In essence he seems to be saying the same thing McCain and Bush are saying i.e. we will withdraw ASAP but not sooner. No deadline, just a hope/goal. To make Iraq secure could take years, not months. Anyway, glad to hear him change his policy or details thereof regarding the war in Iraq.
Reply
-
-
0%
fsev4112 months ago
Unfortunately neither of the candidates have ultimate control of campaign spending, fund raising or tactics. The success of the candidate largely determines the success of the party. If the candidate loses, the party loses and neither major party wants to allow that to happen. Thus the party and related entities have more control over the campaign than may be healthy. What may be well meaning, honest candidates enter the fray and suddenly become puppets of the party. For a totally independent candidate to participate, and control his/her own campaign etc. is totally impossible. Its not much different than two monopolistic corporations competing for our dollars and votes.
Reply-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.6 Replies
-
-
0%
tiredofwhiners12 months ago
Face the facts, either candidate will do whatever to convince voters of their ideas. Money is very important. The biggest lobby of all is the little guy (like me) who wants to get all they can from the wealthy (not always me but sometimes me). And who believes the campaign promises (sometimes me). I haven't given a dime to either side. I read somewhere that the Dems have beat the Repubs big time in contributions from lots of corporations, of which many would be very surprising. I see McCain as a fairly honest person and Obama as fairly honest too. I don't think either is any kind of crook. But both are heavily influenced by their parties and the American people. Remember McCain-Kennedy-Bush amnesty bill? I was one of the millions of people who faxed him and others to defeat that bill. Even my Nevada senator "Dingy Harry" Reid. McCain finally saw the light and said "I learned my lesson" about illegal immigration. But Reid hasn't learned.
Reply -
0%
willottica12 months ago
I'd neg myself if I could. Sorry tiredofwhiners... I shouldn't whine about your whining, because I'm tired of whiners too.
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners12 months ago
willotica - You have a good heart and are a civil person. Not sure of your views but I respect you. Whining is just a word I put in my user name and never changed it. I remembered the Whiners on Saturday Night Live. Everyone is whining but, if in a civil and sensible way, no problem. I actually threw some satire and humor into this thread but it didn't register to most. If I see some real stretches or never a sense of humor then they qualify as a whiner. I might change to "petpeeve" because my pet peeves are those who ALWAYS want a link to prove something, even well known facts. Then if provided they usually chop that link as a bad source (left or right). I gave one link from the NY Times editorial that was fairly well interpreted and someone pooh poohed it as a bad source. I mostly don't have time for links. Another pet peeve is those who name call and put down (a little put down or sarcasm is OK). I am guilty of responding in kind but rarely initiate such rudeness.
Reply
-
-
0%
canadianrancher5712 months ago
tiredofwhiners- Your comment about maybe voting for Obama caught my attention because it showed that maybe you have looked at the opinions of other candidates or parties which to me is something that all people should do when given the chance to vote. If people from both sides questioned their candidate as well as the opposing candidate we all might get better served by our representatives. As for the firkin I guess I learn something new every day.
Reply -
-
Secret_Asian_ManComment removed: User banned.4 Replies
-
-
0%
grassroots4usa12 months ago
IT WAS JUST REPORTED THAT THE U.S. CONGRESS JUST HIT A HISTORICAL LOW POINT EVER WITH A RATING FALLING INTO THE SINGLE DIGITS..... SO WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT THE DEMOCRATS WHO CONTROL CONGRESS AND HAVE FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. ITS SAYS THAT THEY NEED TO SHUT UP AND GIVE AMERICA THE HOPE THEY KEEP PROMISING.. WHAT A BUNCH OF LOSERS...
Reply-
0%
tiredofwhiners12 months ago
You mean there is someone who approves of what congress is doing?
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
-
0%
TonyByron12 months ago
This article is a whiny, disingenuous load of BS.
McCain limits himself to public financing as he said he would. Obama breaks from what he said and refuses public financing. Now the leftistas are pi$$ed that the RNC has more more tacos in the bank than the DNC and they're worried.
Obama and the DNC chose their weapons and McCain and the RNC chose theirs. No one was forced to do anything.
"...thanks to loopholes in the law that allow outside groups to effectively skirt such limits with largely unregulated "soft money" contributions." Of course the Obama campaign will benefit from these very same "loopholes".
Moveon has been attacking McCain since at least April.
Obama backed out of public financing because he thought he could raise more money than McCain's $84 million limit.
The Obamababies need to stop crying, the rules are the same for both sides.
Reply-
0%
CHAM12 months ago
Tony, I didn't realize it was the Obamababies that were doing the whining. I sure thought it was the Republicans that were the crybabies.
The rules are the same for both side, but then what was it bush said when he signed bills, did it go something like "OK heres one law I'm not going to keep, I ain't gonna keep this one neither, not gonna keep this one, What's that Dickie boy, you say that's the Constitution I said I ain't gonna keep, well its just a G.. D... piece of paper anyway!
I know pepole ain't gonna like it.
What's that Dickie boy, did you say So?
Reply -
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
JohnQPublicComment removed: User banned.
-
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
TONYBYRON:
"Obama and the DNC chose their weapons and McCain and the RNC chose theirs."
Public funding is only successful at reducing the influence of special interests and lobbyists IF unregulated soft-money sources are eliminated.
Obama realized one of McCain's weaknesses was fundraising. McCain would not have been able to raise $85 million without public financing.
Obama also realized that McCain would skirt campaign finance rules that McCain himself helped enact. McCain would circumvent his own campaign finance rules by accepting millions in unregulated soft-money, by accepting donations from PACs, by restructuring his campaign finances to accept more than the $2300 donation limit imposed on direct personal contributions, and by hiring federally-registered lobbyists to be his top campaign advisors. All of these actions VIOLATE McCain's pledge to minimize the influence of special interests even though McCain will be accepting public financing.
Reply -
0%
ybdogsct12 months ago
So, Obama wisely withdrew from public funding (It's not illegal to do so.). But Obama also upheld his pledge to reduce the influence of special interests by refusing to accept money from PACs and federally-registered lobbyists. Obama also forced the DNC to do the same.
Obama has not reneged on his pledge to reduce the influence of special interests; Obama has simply found an alternative and more effective way to do accomplish this goal.
Meanwhile in accepting public funding, McCain has found an effective way to fool simpletons that he is doing everything in his power to minimize the influence of special interests on elections, while simultaneously accepting MILLIONS in UNREGULATED soft-money, accepting MILLIONS from PACs and lobbyists, and hiring infamous lobbyists to be his top campaign advisors.
And yet you fail to see the incongruity between McCain's pledge and his actions.
LOL.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.