John McCain Returns $3 Million To Donors, Signals Public Financing

Boston Globe   |  Scott Helman and Sarah Isenberg   |   April 4, 2008 09:50 AM


Show your support.
Buzz this article up.

In another sign that John McCain is moving toward accepting public financing this fall, the Republican's campaign is returning about $3 million in checks to contributors who have given money for his general election campaign, funds he could not use if he opts into the public system.
more stories like this

McCain's campaign, in letters to contributors, is asking supporters to write new checks to a special fund created to help the Arizona senator pay legal and accounting expenses related to compliance with the public funding system.

Read the whole story here.



Comments
68
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:


FACT: Mr. McCain was broke going into the primaries.

FACT: Mr. McCain used seven (7) separate financial maneuvers while "borrowing" against the public finance money.

FACT: Mr. McCain cheated the United States Treasury and needs to return that money ($3,000,000) or risk going to jail under an Obama administration.

FACT: Mr. McCain is having issues raising new money. Mr. Obama does not and will not.

FACT: Mr. Obama already has public financing [1.2 million separate donors averaging $96 dollars]. Mr. McCain needs public financing. Mr. Obama does not.
--------------------

QUESTION: Why should Mr. Obama trust Mr. McCain to suddenly obey the public financing rules now...!?!?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:16 PM on 04/05/2008

Hey, he can always use Cindy's bucks, can't he? So they have to live in public housing after he oses the election. I'm sure he and Cindy won't mond. After all, they are just like "the little people", right? Yeah, if the "little people" have private jets and limos and lobbyists. Oh, my!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:46 PM on 04/04/2008

Please point out which one of the Democrat candidates represents the lifestyle of "the little guy". Heck, look at the main headling story of this website for the answer.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:58 PM on 04/04/2008

You aren't very bright are you?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 09:11 PM on 04/04/2008

Okay, bright person. YOU point out which Democrat best represents the lifestyle of the "little guy."

A. Obama
B. Clinton
C. Neither of these candidates

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:48 AM on 04/05/2008

McCain has been violating the McCain - Feingold law that he helped pass . If he does not go with public financing, he will be in violation of the law that he agreed to and accepted money from early on in his campaign. No other candidate signed on for this so they are not legally obligated to restrict themselves to public financing.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:58 PM on 04/04/2008

This is yet another example of how Senator Obama is going to lose the general election.

1) Senator McCain promised to run a clean campaign, as did Senator Obama. Yet Senator Obama continues to use the "100 Years" comment out of context despite various independent media groups stating Obama is distorting the record. Senator Obama wants us to put Reverend Wright into some sort of context but he continues to ignore the context of Senator McCain's statements.

2) Senator McCain will be using federal funds as promised this fall, while Senator Obama will go back on his word and try to buy the election.

At least with Senator Clinton you know where she is coming from. She doesn't claim to be clean, or fair. She is who she is, (a politician), and doesn't sugar coat it. I'd rather have someone who is honestly dishonest, than a Senator Obama who seems to continually lie (about what he heard Wright say and his relationship with Wright) while keeping a straight face.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:54 PM on 04/04/2008

Why is it, when Republicans are caught saying stupid things, they (or their apologists) resort to "it was taken out of context"? Here's what he said:

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years " (cut off by McCain)

McCAIN: Make it a hundred.

Q: Is that ¦ (cut off)

McCAIN: We"ve been in South Korea ¦ we"ve been in Japan for 60 years. We"ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans ¦

Q: [tries to say something]

McCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. {..}
------------

Since we know that the qualifier: "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed." is untenable, why is he willing to keep troops there?

"while Senator Obama will go back on his word and try to buy the election." What an insult to the millions of people motivated to donate. That's the way a campaign should be financed. The problem with money isn't from individuals willing to contribute money to a candidate's campaign, it's when corporate money dominates the candidate's fundraising. We don't need candidates owned by corporations and the top 2%, we need candidates who have a vision that reflects what the majority of people need and expect from their President.

The only way a Republican wins is if they manage to game the results for a 3rd time.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 04/04/2008

This is the death watch for the McCain campaign. This is a major political blunder on his part. Conservatives will look at this as McCain being McCain stubborn to a fault and not even trying to win the campaign.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:28 PM on 04/04/2008

NO, I think you have this wrong. McInsane was breaking the law that HE CO-AUTHORED AND PASSED.

Firedoglake.com (similar to Huffpost) filed a legal case with the FEC about McInsane breaking his own law. 38 THOUSAND, yes, 38,000 citizens signed the petition.

The drawback with this site is that it is NOT activist. The only activist issue I can remember was saying NO to polling.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 04/04/2008

Fox News reported that Obama does take money from oil corporations. That is an outright lie,
because someone happens to work for big oil gave money, that is not the same. If so, me
working for the school system would mean the school is funding Obama. Now that is
ludicrous. The pastor in Obama's church has made his opinion known, that does not mean that
Obama shares his opinion. If that was the case, we would not need churches or preahers because we did listen. In other words, just watch the press.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 04/04/2008

If I recall, the OBAMA campaign HAS RECEIVED donations from Petroleum groups.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:35 PM on 04/04/2008

OK ... No more playing nice. The Clintons and their pack of ROVIAN liars have resorted to the pathetic now. Individuals within these industries. Using your loser logic then every industry in America backs Obama if you base it on his range of individual contributors.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 PM on 04/04/2008

Grasping at straws...good try though. LMAO,,,

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 04/04/2008

Why should Obama take taxpayer money (including much from non-supporters) when he already has a willing base of small donors "publicly" funding his campaign?

Obama already refuses corporate and lobbyist money. If he wants to refuse taxpayer money, too, I don't see a problem with it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:46 PM on 04/04/2008

Sorry, look at the donor list, you are clearly NOT reading it.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 04/04/2008

Not all of Senator Obama's donations come from small donors. Don't forget Rezko.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 02:59 PM on 04/04/2008

Rezcos money was donated to Charity. At least McCain gave 3 mill back. Funny ... I don't see any examples of the Clintons trying to correct inappropriate funding. Hmmm??? But you Hiilaroids can look beyond this ... Right???

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:03 PM on 04/04/2008

Oooh...the big bad Rezko card! Let's pull that out, shall we? Rezko, Rezko, Rezko. Go down the list of many top competitors and try to figure out if every dime of their contributions are legal. I bet there have been many in the past, on all sides of the political spectrum that are questionable. Plus, I know living under republican rule has trashed the law and the constitution, but Rezko is still innocent until a jury convicts him. Has he been convicted yet? Is the trial still going on? I am awaiting the day that we put George W.Bush, Dick Cheney, and all of the other people who we KNOW have violated laws are put on trial. If Rezko did anything, I can guarantee you that his crimes will pale in comparison to the crap this criminal enterprise has perpetrated!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:50 PM on 04/04/2008

And while we are at it, why is the Norman Hsu Trial not being publicized? I bet the
Clinton Machine is surpressing it. Obama can pride himself that many, many people
are donating, sort of like five & dime him and the sheer number makes one big sum.
That Hillary does not see it, she must know something we don't YET, perhaps she will
buy off the Super Delegates, who knows.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:29 PM on 04/04/2008

here we go agin bashing Hillary when she is down,I thought we were above that kid stuff

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 04/04/2008

Since the fatcats won't fund him, he's turning his smile to the American citizens.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:52 PM on 04/04/2008

excuse me but I can't quiet trust a man who preaches one thing and sneakly does other things
its not all Hillary fault,Obama throws dirt also.and it seems to me that he looks down his nose alot
I am afraid that this man will win and we will all regret it just like electing the chimp,oh Bush is like a breath of fresh air we need a change well friends we got a change didn't we,a law breaking president and we need the press to wise up for a change they also have to take blame for what the country is dealing with by giving the chimp and his master a free reign

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:34 PM on 04/04/2008

So if Obama refuses to get down in the dirt with Hillary,

he "looks downs his nose"?

I guess he's disgusted with what he sees.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:35 PM on 04/05/2008

The poor bastard cannot raise the money to make an effective run for the Presidency. Obama is going to grind him into the ground just like he's doing to Hillary.

This is a big test for Obama. It's about his much touted judgment. Anyone who claims to have judgment cannot give up the fund raising machine Obama has built. Proper judgment requires that Obama break his word. This time Obama has the money machine that can run the advertisements in key markets that make a difference in the general election.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:51 PM on 04/04/2008

First of all Obama only promised to consider and negotiate regarding public finance. Secondly, are we going to let the Rethuglicans do this to us again? They somehow always manage to back us into a place where we look like the ones who are being unfair when they are the ones being disingenuous at best. Obama would have a better chance if he broke his so-called "promise" than giving into these freaks and getting his ass swiftboated. Nobody blinked an eye when the Repugs did their caged voting. They are scared and desperate and now they are going to try and make it look like they are taking the high road, well too freaking bad! Obama is not doing anything illegal. He is raising money fair and square. The conservatives can only win by disenfranchising voters and having their guy appointed by the Supreme Court. Even all their swiftboating could not pull off a win all by itself. They still had to make sure they messed with Cuyahoga County in ohio. I live in Cuyahoga County. I know what went down here.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:42 PM on 04/04/2008

This is what the MSM never discusses. Obama never promised to take public funding he said he would talk to the Republican nominee like you said. The MSM is the one who should get bashed on this issue for not reporting all the facts.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:30 PM on 04/04/2008

SLITHERS LIKE A SNAKE

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:28 PM on 04/04/2008

as soon as Obama commits to limited public funding you can bet the 527 "Swift Boat" and their ilk will be incorporating by the thousands for the RepugliKKKans.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:01 PM on 04/04/2008

any thing said to discredit Obama will bring up the race card why do you think the repubs are afraid of him I am not a obama fan and I really think if the repus try swift boating the streets will be bloody with riots.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 04/04/2008

Bloody with riots? What a cheap shot, under the table thing to say. Were the streets bloodied with riots after the 2000 election? How about in 2004? When the streets should have been taken to, and not bloodied but to pull Dick and George out and take their asses to be tried before a war crimes tribunal should have been yesterday! Get it? That my dear has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the Constitution of the United States!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:49 PM on 04/04/2008

Obama will use Public funds only if Mccain agrees to rein in the Swift boats

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:43 PM on 04/04/2008

No way. That would be a reason to support Clinton. Anyone who is so stupid to give up $30 mil a month cannot be President.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:40 PM on 04/04/2008

I see, so on one hands liberals want limited spending and funding on elections and on the other hand, they are stupid not to go for the big money. Yeah, makes pefect sense.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:04 PM on 04/04/2008

Big surprise. There's no way McCain can come close to raising funds from small donors, because the Republican base is corporations. They've done such a lousy job managing the economy, even corporations aren't giving. So what's left? Taxpayers. Obama should stick with the fundraising that works, millions of small donors who want a President whose agenda is promoting the interests of all Americans, not the 2% that fund Republicans.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:42 PM on 04/04/2008

Well just a few days ago, it seemed the corporate branches of his own party wouldn't fund him. Of course he has to turn to public funding!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:32 PM on 04/04/2008

why do we have to fund these millionairs they don't listen to us any way,promises they know they can't keep,or can't get passed so what is the use of sending them any more money,look what happened when bush got elected he used the hard earned money we sweated for just to turn around and slap us in the face,oh one more thing where is all this money coming from I thought the times were tough

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:42 PM on 04/04/2008

See, this is why they love to pass laws that don't apply to them.
Pity.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:31 PM on 04/04/2008

The reason for this is fairly obvious. He applied for public financing early on in the race as collateral for the $5 million loan he got from a bank after South Carolina. He has since been unable to get out of public financing because of a bureaucratic hold-up. So now he's trying to turn lemons into lemonade by making himself look like a holier-than-thou by making a big deal of accepting public financing.