Good Morning Jane – thank you for your efforts in this !

not a damn peep in that Globe article about the good senator’s current ‘troubles’ with the FEC

A toast to the rule of law ~ and FDL!

Bring out your. Dong. Bring out your dead.

That photo cracks me up.

Way to shame McCain FDL!!!111

A toast to the rule of law ~ and FDL!

clink!

Of course. McCain will never raise the kind of money the Dems are raising. He has nothing to lose by doing this.

If only he hadn’t broken the law.

They are going to need alot of lipstick for this pig.

Morning pups. McCain’s money problems are monumental and they aren’t going to get any better with time. Of course the MSM will be clamoring shortly for Obama to go on public financing, and when he doesn’t use it to pump up support for McCain as a ‘reformer’.

OT: Bad night’s sleep last night as I woke up round 2 am from a bad dream about a Yoo memo, and what was worse, realized it wasn’t a dream. I’ve been thinking about Cheney and Addington, and how both of them are obsessed by the Vietnam anti-war movement, which in Cheney’s view is what ‘lost’ the war there. Hate to keep going back to old history, especially for those of you who weren’t even born or conscious yet, but it’s crucial to understanding the measures that Cheney has taken to suppress any serious public demonstrations of resistance to their war programme. The Yoo memo and the as yet unreleased other memos establish a secret legal(?) framework for imprisoning Americans whose dissent might endanger that programme. I find it hard to believe the programme could have been executed without some kind of a praetorian guard, but the programme was clearly in the minds of Addington and Cheney.

I think it surprised them that the resistance wasn’t more strident. The reason is there is no draft, which was what mobilized young people in the late 60s, when, if you failed a couple of courses in college, you were off to the jungle. In retrospect we are fortunate that there were no large demonstrations that coulde easily have been manipulated by agents-provocateurs to provide excuses for imposing martial law. There have been enough small-scale incidents of unlawful detention to warrant the supposition that they were prepared to go the whole nine yards.

What’s happened is that the resistance, originally and still inchoate, has crystallized around Obama’s campaign.

The horrible history has got to be exposed by the next administration.

BS Express ™

There are a lot of us who are hoping for more than “exposure” from the next administration.

The horrible history has got to be exposed by the next administration.

do you think some kind of a truth and reconciliation process has a chance?

i ask because, as much as i’d like to see the whole crew behind bars, given the dems complicity, i just don’t see how that might be accomplished.

I’ve been thinking about Cheney and Addington, and how both of them are obsessed by the Vietnam anti-war movement, which in Cheney’s view is what ‘lost’ the war there.

What kills me about those who mentally go back and try to win in Vietnam is the simple fact that the United States of America would be no better off today had we won that we are for having lost. What’s at stake for those guys is their sense of manhood and nothing else.

And it’s the same with Iraq. How will the U.S. be any better off if we win, whatever that means. We aren’t going to live happily ever after. And you can’t repeal technology, especially nuclear technology. Eventually, everyone will have the bomb. And, pissed off people will use it.

OT
right now the Mukasey hearing on the budget (from yesterday) is now on CSPAN 3

the Iraqi refugee panel will resume at 10:45 am on CSPAN 1

Villanova University Law School hosts an Iraqi refugee conference. Panelists include NGO providers discussing the refugee crisis today and providing updates from the field, also foreign ambassadors discuss the world’s response.

Good moanin’!..’The people’ could have stopped or greatly slowed this American train wreck early on or somewhat later. One week of a peaceful boycott of meaningful US culture and economics without risking anyone’s blood would have made an unbelievable change in American politics. It’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.

Thank you Elliot.

It is gut- wrenching to listen to all of this while others are watching a house fire in Oregon that is Breaking News on MSNBC.

(I am still grumpy)

Thank you Jane for keeping the pressure on McBush. America deserves an enlightened and involved electorate– I surely hope we don’t have to fall further from grace in order to recognize the error of our ways.

– [Congressional Record, 11/21/04] –

There’s no link maybe because there is no Congressional Record of November 21, 2004.

Links to CR of 2003 and 2004

McCain seems to be describing proposed legislation, in any event — the current legislation doesn’t tie a candidate to public financing for both the primary and general phases of an election campaign

John McCain makes laws for other people, he doesn’t actually intend to follow them himself when it becomes inconvenient.

Good morning Jane. Thank you for all your efforts.

I guess he does not consider it a crime if McCain violates McCain. Self abuse is obviously OK by him.

the current legislation doesn’t tie a candidate to public financing for both the primary and general phases of an election campaign

The candidate can choose either or both?

The quote comes from 11/21/2003, not 2004.

Here’s a link to the relevant page of the print edition of the Congressional Record. (It’s the very last paragraph on the page.) Note that this was not a floor speech, but remarks inserted into the record at the introduction of the bill.

Jane &/or the mods may want to edit the post to correct this and add in the link.

Ok I am confused and I try and follow this issue. I wonder how the GOP voters are trying to rationalize public financing for campaigns is good then bad and now its good again?
Day is night, night is day,
The Press however has never had a problem believing in 10 impossible things before breakfeast.

OT: Brilliant post on MLK’s anti-war activism by Patrick Nielsen-Hayden over at Making Light.

Hehehehehe . . . he’s a crafty ole coot, ain’t he . . .?

Please don’t let up the pressure on this issue

Jane, McCain’s latest gambit is in response to the pressure from the FEC complaint. I think he and his campaign know this could blow up in their faces if he doesn’t dance this little dance. McCain’s hoping to run out the clock to get to the general campaign when this will all become a “little side issue” the MSM will ignore.

Well, I say (as Athenae said a long time ago), Attack. Attack. Attack.

The candidate can choose either or both?

Correct. The candidate can be in Public Financing for the primary and opt-out for the general election or can opt-out for the primary while accepting for the general or opt out of both or accept for both.

Perhaps McCain didn’t exactly break the law. What signing statements were attached by Bush when he signed the law? He may have added exceptions for Republics.

Well, when raising $$ becomes difficult, you flip-flop. Also,remember THAT poll which showed overall, John Edwards had the support to win the election overall (over H. Clinton and Obama). Remember the poll noted that many supported Edwards because of his Campaign Finance position and he would draw large cross-over votes because of it?

Okay, you just get hit with breaking campaign finance laws. How do you “remake yourself? You borrow from the best idea on campaign finance and re-virginize yourself…

From the Edwards campaign:

“John Edwards is championing an expansion of the public financing option to congressional races. It’s a good idea, and it’s good that Edwards has brought it to the fore in this presidential campaign.”

The News & Observer (Raleigh, NC) editorial, October 13, 2007

When special interests have seized control over Washington, it is no coincidence that regular families face stagnant wages, longer hours at work, and higher costs for health care, energy, and college. Insurance and drug companies block efforts to make health care universal and more affordable. Energy and power companies block efforts to develop renewable energy and improve energy efficiency. Financial institutions block efforts to crack down on predatory lending. Businesses block efforts to give workers a real choice to join a union. Wealthy taxpayers and corporations lobby for special tax breaks while the 37 million Americans living in poverty are not even on the agenda.

John Edwards believes that we can not go on as two Americas with two political systems—one for the insiders who can buy unlimited access to our leaders, and another for the rest of us. Today, he outlined his One Democracy Initiative, which will return the power in Washington to regular Americans by strengthening voting and campaign finance laws and taking on the special influence of lobbyists.

So, you can flip-flop and win cross-over votes with this one plus get the money your campaign needs? Right!

And then there is that nasty issues of the Secretary of State in Ohio WATCHING the “funnel” of GOP election funds:

http://www.dispatchpolitics.co…..38;sid=101

Hard to build a campaign in key states when the illegal money chains are being cut…

OT but a Democratic President with a large majority in Congress could/should pass public financing of all federal elections. Funding available from raising taxes on the rich. They’ve been winning the class war for far too long. Congress with a large Democratic majority could also pass legislation that would require a waiting period of 5 years before members of Congress could join a lobbying firm. This will require pressure from the people who are sick and tired of the revolving door. A Democratic President should also increase the number serving on the Supreme Court.

From blog.washingtonpost.com/stumped/2008/03/splitting_this_immigrants_vote.html

…when Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform in March 2002. His accompanying statement pretty much called significant aspects of the law unconstitutional, as abridging the First Amendment, and expressed his hope that the courts would sort it out!

whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/03/20020327.html

What a Preznit!

I wonder what the news about McCain possibly going back on public financing says to big GOP political contributors about their guy’s chances? The GOP tends to be anti public anything.

Jane &/or the mods may want to edit the post to correct this and add in the link.

thanks peterr!

will someone (mods!) please try to get jane this info? i’ve mentioned it in every thread i’ve seen where it comes up. see the original thread for a discussion.

As for keeping the option of public financing open by insuring the contributions don’t run afoul of the public financing system, that’s just prudent. A bit shortsighted on McCain’s part to not have had the requisite entities in place up front, to take in contributions so that the option was open.

– when Bush signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform in March 2002 –

There’s a very persistent error that McCain is now breaching the McCain-Feinglod law. He’s not. McCain Feingold limits contributors of soft money.

What McCain is in breach of is an agreement he entered into, under a 1973 law that created a public financing system for political campaigns that chose to opt in.

– The quote comes from 11/21/2003, not 2004. –

Thanks for that.

Here’s a link to the same thing in plaintext, for the PDF averse (still big, 750 kB of text covering other bills as well). CR Page S15412 – November 21, 2003. McCain is speaking on the introduction of S.1913 – Presidential Funding Act of 2003, a bill that was sent to committee, and if acted on, was acted on under a different bill number.

The relevant requirement of it — correlating primary and general systems, is stated in CRS Summary of S.1913 in the 108th Congress

(3) require candidates to be eligible to receive funding under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act to have received payments under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act

The proposed bill would also have changed the dollar for dollar match (up to $250 per donor) to a four dollars for a dollar “super-match.”

McCain is speaking

that’s the point – all the evidence is that he wasn’t speaking – it was a written addition to the congressional record – NOT a floor statement.

I think that the huge popular base of funding for Obama is going to make The Powers That Be rethink their opposition to controls on electoral spending. They cannot afford a true popularly elected government. We haven’t had one in decades. I am willing to put a small wage that if Obama’s funding blows McCain and the thugs out of the water next fall, there will be a huge outcry from the thuglicans and their media lackeys for finance reform, and the Supremes will back them up.

As to previous opposition: that was then, this is now.

– Perhaps McCain didn’t exactly break the law. –

Depending on how one chooses to construe “break the law,” as a technical matter perhaps he didn’t. There is no law that limits, per se, a campaign’s spending. But, in order to obtain public financing, a candidate has to enter into an agreement that includes spending limits. Entering this agreement is entirely voluntary – there is no law that says a candidate MUST adhere to the spending limits associated with public financing.

What McCain is in breach of is his agreement with the FEC to limit spending in certain ways, and to permit the FEC to audit his receipts and spending — in exchange for obtaining public money.

McCain argues that since he never took the money, he’s not bound to the agreement. But, McCain used the possibility of public money and the FEC certification that he qualified for it 1) to give comfort to a lender and 2) to obtain an advantage in ballot access in several states.

– that’s the point – all the evidence is that he wasn’t speaking –

Oh, I’m sure that’s the case. I didn’t see that difference as significant; and was just off the cuff noting that the remarks appeared to be associated with a proposed bill.

the problem is that there are front page posts that make the claim that mccain did say it. i’m concerned only that we get it right (i don’t think it affects the conclusions – but i don’t want to see any opening being given people who might want to undermine the effort).

so the reason i jumped on your comment was not so much to correct you (as i understand that was not the point of your comment), but i didn’t want your comment to confuse the mods or jane if they are reading this thread on the issue of “mccain said.”

p.s. to mods – please feel free to delete my comments, but only if you are sure the message has gotten to where it needs to go. thanks!