got it.

i will raise it, just as i did the other things. sent it to professors, media, commentators, talking heads, journalists, the list is long.

thank you, will take that next tack in next barrage of letters when i get back in town.

accurate information is a good thing, and that is how i try to send it out.

thanks so much.

There are two sets of parallel covenants. One set with the original loan agreement on Nov 14, and a revised set on December 17. It’s a private loan agreement, amenable to renegotiation.

The “pledging of public money” issue appears in both sets of covenants and security agreements.

– banking ethics aren’t violated including that clause in the agreement? –

The lender wants to be repaid. If the candidate isn’t getting traction and private funding, the lender has every right to seek comfort in the form of public matching funds.

McCain’s former FEC chair is full of shit. He’s applying a formalistic analysis … “no pledge of existing certification”, true enough. But the campaign effectively promised public funds would be available if the campaign underperformed. Absent a withdrawal, none of this would see the light of day. It’s sneaky shit, and should not be the model for all future campaigns who seek both loans and public financing.

Yes, it’s sneaky and weasely, bigtime. It ought to be aired.

where is that from? i don’t remember that being anywhere in the documents i read. maybe i skipped it looking for the other stipulations.

banking ethics aren’t violated including that clause in the agreement?

maybe that’s how mccain said with a straight face that his former FEC chair said it was all legal.

oh man, that clause makes it more worth airing than anything else it was about.

sneaky fuckers.

i’m becoming foulmouthed due to this ’foul-mouthed fem blog’.

COMPLIANCE WITH THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION’S MATCHING FUNDS PROGRAM Borrower agrees and covenants with Lender that while this Agreement is in effect, Borrower shall not, without Lender’s prior written consent, exceed overall or state spending limits imposed under the Federal Matching Funds Program, irrespective of whether Borrower is subject to such program as of any applicable date of determination.

So under the agreement as last notified to the FEC (as far as we know), the lender gave McCain a way to breach public financing spending limits without breaching the loan agreement. Given healthy private contributions, the lender would give written consent to exceed the spending limits.

Heh. Me too. I learned the hard way that source documents are essential, if one intends to get to the bottom of any issue. It makes for tough slogging, but at least it’s reliable.

Under one interpretation, yes, he could. McCain is in breach of a loan covenant, one that just happened to track the FEC public financing agreement exactly.

I’d have to read the whole agreement again to get contect, but wonder whether another interpretation could take advantage of the words “if applicable.” So, if the FEC limits AREN’T applicable, i.e., McCain’s private fundraising is doing better than the the public matching funds, then the lender still has comfort.

you provided them, after days of searching, in one link you gassed up my car.

so, link your name to your blog, please.

i read and read.

i will be reading more.

cboldt, thanks for sharing, and please, highlight your name as a blog, you are a great senate resource.

without your input, i never would have had the confidence of having enough specific facts under my belt to send out letters about mccain’s FEC violations.

never would have happened.

don’t know if they did any good or not, but they were factual, and informed, thanks to your help. and i sent them every freakin’ where. even the diane rehm show. cuz they kept getting it wrong.

jane gave me the subject and what was happening, you gave me specifics. i’m a details girl, without the details, i can’t speak to it.