John McCain is Breaking the Law He Wrote -- So Where's Fred Wertheimer Now?

Earlier this year, Fred Werthiemer of Democracy 21 was shaking his finger at Barack Obama for breaking what he perceived to be a promise to use the public financing system should Obama be the Democratic nominee.

"I'm concerned with the position the Obama campaign is taking," Mr. Wertheimer said. "He is now saying this is an option. But they made a commitment in 2007 to do this. There were no conditions, no arguments, that 'we'll decide this when we get the nomination.' I think it's very important for Senator Obama to reaffirm the commitment that he made."

But what Obama said was, "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election," which caused groups like the Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, Democracy 21, the League of Women Voters, Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG to write a letter to Obama urging him to abide by his "promise."

Well the whole thing's a bit moot now, because what Obama said he would do is pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee -- and that presumptive nominee, John McCain, is thumbing his nose at the public financing system -- ironically breaking the very law with his name on it (McCain/Feingold).

The DNC filed a complaint today with the FEC you can read here. But essentially, McCain signed a candidate agreement in August of 2007, seeking a certificate of eligibility for matching funds with the FEC. On December 20, the Commission announced it had certified McCain to receive federal matching funds. But checks for matching funds generally don't get written until February or March, and the cash strapped McCain campaign needed money before that.

So on January 31 2008, the McCain campaign disclosed that it had obtained a $4 million line of credit, and had already drawn $2,971,697 of that credit.

The laws covering public financing require that you can only spend $54 million during the primary, and McCain's reports say that as of January 31, 2008 he had spent $49,600,000 -- which means he's probably already over that limit. So to nobody's surprise, on February 6, he sent a letter to the Commission announcing that his campaign was withdrawing from participation in the federal primary election fund program.

Well that would all be fine and dandy except as McCain well knows, you can't just wave a magic wand and do that.

McCain is saying that Howard Dean and John Kerry also withdrew from public financing after they applied for it, but both of them pulled out before certification and they had a vote of the FEC board which allowed them to do it. Further, they hadn't materially benefited from being in the public financing system -- and McCain has. McCain was able to get free ballot access in Kentucky, Montana, Ohio and Delaware because of his participation. And without grass roots support -- which McCain does not have -- gathering signatures would have cost him a pretty penny.

Further, the law quite carefully stipulates that if McCain's loan was obtained by pledging money he was to receive from public financing as collateral, he can't opt out of the system. And as Mark Schmidt says in his analysis, McCain's convoluted tapdance around that subject seems like an attempt to flout the law without actually breaking it. It's too cute by half. Which is why the FEC sent a letter to McCain (PDF) saying that he can only ask for a ruling to let him out of public financing, and in the mean time they want some answers about the loan.

Regardless, the Republican leadership in the Senate is currently keeping the FEC from having a quorum that could vote to give McCain a waiver to get out of the system (remember our old friend Hans Von Spakovsky?) Which means that at this point in time, they can't grant one. McCain has no doubt reached if not exceeded the spending cap, and is shrugging his shoulders at the FEC's attempts to call him on the carpet. As Mark Schmidt says, the "maverick" is saying to the FEC -- "come and get me!"

So the question is -- McCain, once the darling of the reform groups, is now openly gaming the system he helped to create. Fred Wertheimer and his friends at the Washington Post editorial board were all over Barack Obama for a perceived infraction that had absolutely no legal implications -- so why are they so silent about John McCain flipping them all the bird?

Jane Hamsher blogs at firedoglake.com

Follow Jane Hamsher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/janehamsher

Comments

[Spiriteddona]

i thought it would be mc and the pretty lobbyist favor. mc runs on being the boring family values fart, when the truth is, he needs no cialsis. he is as divorced as rudy judy. ronnie was left by jane. i also thought you were speaking of barack's lot next to the guy in chicago. i am a hil suporter, and i don't care about the lot. bad business deals and bad friendships go wrong each day

[swkidder]

I hate to sound like Nancy Pelosi ... but the more McCain "misbehaves," the more his pretentions to ethical behavior evaporate in the face of temptation and exigency ... the better his chances of losing become.
And that makes me happier than a gopher in loose dirt.

[tedeger]

Well, McCain is a Republican, married to the Arizona mob, a member of the famous Keating five - you expected maybe HONESTY?

[JanP]

Actually, what you want is for McCain not to be able to reach the votor.

Democrats don;t want a "war of ideas". Theyw ant to use subtrefuge to gian a political advanatge.

This is the same concept as wanting us to lose in Iraq, lose to al Qaeda, just so they can win an election.

I am a registered Democrat, but the party is rapidly losing me.

[goodspeed]

JanP...rea­lly... this whole political system is subterfuge. We the People, we the corporations, we the elite, we the powerful, tell me which is it ??? Which best defines the Democratic system of "we the people" ???

As far as the concept of "wanting to lose the war in Iraq" goes, the war in Iraq was a losing cause at it's beginning. You can't lose whats already lost.

Beside all the lives lost in Iraq that compound human misery, Iraq will be recorded in history as another one of rich men's follies just like Vietnam.

[911truthseeker]

Jane H has nailed a double standard, alright! And the comment about how the right uses fear and hatred and other tricks that go deep into the reptilian brain, causing otherwise rational people to doublecross their own best interests hit a home run!

What I wait to hear from Obama, when he is the nominee of his party, is that "progress against al Qaida in Iraq" is less than meaningless. BEFORE the illegal and immoral INVASION OF IRAQ, there WAS NO AL QAIDA in IRAQ!!! That whole terrible and US economy-ruining war has ENDANGERED AMERICA!! It has caused the slaughter of countless Iraqi civilians, which, if translated to our population would amount to millions of Americans dead!

Most Americans have no CLUE what this war has meant for the Iraqi people, all based upon lies. We need a candidate who will call a spade a spade, no pun meant. But we also need a candidate who will stand up and say: "I reject the support of Louis farrakhan because he has expressed bigotry in the past against Jews, and I REJECT THE LABEL that I am the "Black candidate" in this race!"

Barack Obama, were he running for office in the God-forsaken country of his father's birth, would be the "White" candidate, by the logic the media applkies here.

I am sick of it. We need to start talking sense and truth.

[JanP]

When was al Qaeda given as a reason to invade Iraq? It wasn't. There were a number of reasons beside WMDs.

Was it immoral to get rid of mass murderer Saddam? Do you forget the tortures he did? Did you forget the rape rooms? did you forget the gassing of the Kurds? Or, doesn't that bother you?

Regardless of the reasons, there is now an Al Qaeda in Iraq that the Iraqis are working with the U.S. to get rid of.

When you support abrupt withdrawal, you are saying that you want America to lose. You are saying that because you hate the war, you don;t care if we give 100% of Iraq to al Qaeda. You certainly do not want victory over the terrorists, do you?

The Slaughter of Iraqi civilians occurred first under Saddam (about 1 million people). Now it is being done by al Qaeda who is also blowing up people in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Why do you not want to defeat them wherever they are. Oh the terrain is much more favorable to killing the terrorists in Iraq than Afghanistan.

I Obama a Black candidate? How much of his ancestry has to be Black for him to be Black? 50% of him is from a White mother. On his fathers side, a grandmother or great grandmother is Black. The rest is Arab.

TO His credit, he finally denounced Farrakhan. In the past, he was pro-Palestine. When he ran for national office, he became pro-Israel. Why did his principles change? It couldn't possibly money and votes, could it? (I am a Jew, just in case anyone has questions.­)

[goodspeed]

Evidence proves Bush linked Al Qaeda to Iraq in the following excert from Bush's March 17, 2003 Pre War speech, "The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends and it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of Al Qaeda".

In Bush's post war speeches, on June 28, 2005 at Fort Bragg, NC, "he (Bush) invoked Sept. 11 five times in his speech and referred to it by implication several more times. Although he has previously agreed with investigators that there is "no evidence" of a link between Saddam Hussein's government and the attacks masterminded by Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda...," according to Peter Baker and Dana Milbank, Washington Post Staff Writers, article "Bush Says War Is Worth Sacrifice", Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Page A01.

But what I find interesting was a article published in the Boston Globe on August 31, 2005 entitled "Bush gives new reason for Iraq war", by Jennifer Loven, Associated Press, who writes, " President Bush answered growing antiwar protests yesterday with a fresh reason for US troops to continue fighting in Iraq: protection of the country's vast oil fields..."

Isn't Google a wonderful thing !!!

[billsowlesforjohnmccain]

When was the last time any Gov program worked???

[DoctorDoctor]

when democrats appointed the beaurocrats entrusted to make it work. appointing incompetents to important posts is a republican enterprise.

[waynesmyer]

Thanks Jane! Fred Wertheimer and his so-called Demorats have been surprisingly supportive of Baby Bush and Fuck-Thee Cheneys glorious administration. In the old days, Fred and his "Boulder Bunch" had some guts!Now they just go along to get along! What changed them! Did they sell-Out? Why are they supporting Johnny "Ride the Bomb" McCain and his five million dollar non-collateral bank loan?

[motamanx]

I can not believe that the polls put McCain winning over Obama in the general election. He is a flip-flopping, Bush-hugging empty suit.

He lost me with that hug of Monkeyboy.

[goodspeed]

Yeah, motamanx, I can't, and don't believe that either.

I do believe what we get is manipulated by large degree by alot of the powers that be.

Its getting harder and harder to find an honest crook these days.

[mhj555]

As usual:

IOKIYAR

[SonnyBono]

As Senator Obama said "The wheels have come off the bus."

Note to Senator McCain - Nicknames don't mean anything when you give them to yourself. Maybe its time to put a new coat of paint on the old bus and forget the "straight talk" BS.

[jazzman]

The media will never bash or be successful at bashing a Republican the way Republicans are successful at bashing Democrats. There's just a different kind of dynamic involved when Republicans are on the attack. They reach in and appeal to the deepest darkest regions of the primitive brain such as fear, hatred out of the outsider, the need to conquer and kill, misogyny, and primal mythology. These deep seeded instincts, irrational though they be, are the place that every human being dwells to some extent. Such instincts get people to vote for the authoritarian strong man and against their self-interests even when he is burning down their own houses, stealing from them, and destroying their future.

Democrats keep appealing to people on the basis of what is actually happening to them but many people can't hear it because the message is not as potent as the dark images of fear, misogyny, racism, militarism, vitrolic hatred, and nativism, that is hammered at them through the right wing media. Thus, even though Obama is a ray of light, the darkness of our primal nature has more pure power.

[Guitarsandmore]

I think Obama has adequately demonstrated he can be the authoritarian strong man if need be through his wild ass statements about invading Pakistan.

[Oldsalt]

But, of course, Obama DIDN'T make any "wild ass statements" about "invading Pakistan"! What he DID say was that if he had actionable intelligence on the whereabouts of Osama bin Laden, he would strike him, if President Musharraf wouldn't do so or wouldn't approve it.
Keep in mind who the enemy is here. bin Laden is the guy Bush has given up on. You're entitled to your own opinions but not to your own "facts".

[JanP]

The Media will never Bash a Republican?

What on earth did the NY Times and Washington Post just do?

What ahve they been doing to Bush since eh took Office?

BASH!!!!

[CitizenE]

While I am one of countless admirers of Ms. Hamsher's tireless efforts to turn and fire on the right, I think insofar as taking on McCain--it's more important to go after his politics--Iraq, Supreme Court, tax policy--because it's the politics not the peccadillos that have hamstrung our nation and led us to this unbelievably perilous point in history.
It's my take that people expect politicians to be corrupt, even those with shiney armor; and this is an expectation that is universal and world wide. What people care about is do their politicians deliver and conservatism and the Republican party and their ideas have been an abject disaster for the United States and the world for decades. It's the politics stupid, and important to stay on point and hammer away. There is plenty of information out there right now, for example, that surge has not been all that Mc Cain has advertised, and not just politically, but for the actual lives and future of Iraq--see Juan Cole, Chris Hedges (Truthdig)--but netroots lets both Obama and Clinton go when they don't correct them on that blah blah of course our troops blah blah; instead of pointing to the arming of extremist sunnis as an arm of the surge, the ongoing emigrant and displaced persons crisis, the lack of medical professionals to keep up with the carnage, the continuing, albeit not quite 1st level of hell, violence, the lack of electricity, services, etc still well short of preinvasion levels, the Turkish invasion--on and on. This financing and sex scandals--chump change.

[Guitarsandmore]

I agree but there are more people than should be who pay no attention at all to politics except to vote for the person who is against abortion or the person who is pro choice. Those people are screwing everything up because they don't pay attention to what is actually happening.

[speakingout]

That's exactly why they emphasize those issues! Because they want to distract us with the petty issues so we don't pay attention to the ones that count. More people should get involved in finding out the facts but most Americans are so damm lazy they'd rather watch American Idol, yet those are the ones that vote and sway the election when they should be staying home if they can't vote intelligently. There should be a fact sheet at the polls that people could read to be informed before they cast their vote. But before that, the candidates should have to submit a resume, just like you do when applying for any job! We need an election overhaul!

[solid]

Great post Jane. Unfortunately the details of McCain's lawbreaking are a bit complicated for the average voter to comprehend. So Republicans will completely ignore it, Independents will more than likely dismiss the talk as political gamesmanship, and Democrats already know that McCain is a lying, cheating political whore who long ago dropped the "Maverick" approach.

The Dems need to keep this as simple as possible and repeat over and over in the press: McCain broke the campaign finance law he helped draft. He has no integrity and is NOT to be trusted. Period.

[JanP]

Exactly what laws did McCain break?

Read the First Amendment to the Constitution. All people have a right to petition the government. Which also means that government officials (elected and otherwise) are expected to hear what petitioners ahve to say. Agreeing or disagreeing with the petitioner isn't and can't be illegal.

Remember, that when you are calling or writing a senator or congressman, you are being a petitioner which is the same thing as being a lobbyist.

Petitioning is not bribery.

[unitron]

Campaign financing is such a dirty business that public, i.e., taxpayers', money shouldn't be involved.

[FrankFurter]

Yet another inconvenient truth:
It's ok if republicans do it.

[Berettasskeeter]

I love these blog postings. Nowhere does the author say what law McCain is breaking! Nowhere does she provide any proof that he has gone over any limits, or that he used the public financing commitment to gain loans for his campaign. He may have done so, but no proof is provided! Innuendo and hearsay are not proof of law-breaking. Please hold the hot air until we have the facts.
Semper fi

[MTGradwell]

What part of "ironically breaking the very law with his name on it (McCain/Feingold)" fails to say what law McCain is breaking?

No proof is given that he has gone over the limit because the claim made in that respect is that he has **probably** already gone over the limit. Look the word up in a dictionary. In theory I suppose it's possible that he spent less than 4.4 million in February, in which case he wouldn't be already over the limit now. But in the real world February was the month of hottest competition, with "super Tuesday" alone deciding 22 separate contests. Do you really think McCain got through the month on a shoestring?

Anyway, that's a minor issue. The main claim of the article is that McCain is seeking to opt out of the system he created, having already benefited from it in various ways, when the law is that he can't just opt out. What part of that is innuendo and hearsay? Is the McCain/Feingold law innuendo and hearsay?

[liveandlearn]

when howard dean wrote me an email requesting that i join his action, here is what i said:

to howard dean:

once i sent you five dollars. it was a lot out of my budget. i have not sent any candidate anything since. that was four years ago.

let me bend my creaky knee. i beg of you on bended knee: seat the michigan and florida delegates. we voters deserve to be heard even when you unevenly enforce your rules, allowing new hampshire what you will not allow michigan nor florida: a seat at the table early enough to determine which candidates get weeded out. and you did all you could do to get the candidates to ignore our two states.

well let me tell you something: i will not support any initiatives you offer until you agree to seat those orphan delegates. like other orphans, they got born anyway, and like other orphans, they need their human rights--including THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

like any sensible person, i oppose mccain. but i will not participate in any efforts of yours to affect anything until you put right the delegate mess. forget about superdelegates. they can take care of themselves. YOU have to change what you have wrought in michigan and florida. the sooner, the better.

for peace and sustainability,

[LoRiseAntlers]

Let's see-Hillz was the only candidate in Michigan,and made sure she went to Florida to thank her machine after they had campaigned for her in that state.

So,you're really saying you want Dean to hand Clinton the nomination.

[liveandlearn]

i'm saying both michigan and florida citizens deserve the right to vote, and in michigan we don't like people stomping all over our rights. it was AFTER new hampshire violated the rule without incident that michigan moved to change our primary. why punish michigan and florida but NOT new hampshire?

[Ashall]

liveandlearn -
Your complaints should be directed at your state party, not at Howard Dean. The rules were clearly laid out by the DNC yet Michigan and Florida chose to ignore them. If I were you I'd be demanding from your state officials that a caucus or primary be set up so a "do-over" could resolve the issue. Was it all worth it to have your primaries a few days early? This year especially, your votes on Super Tuesday might have made a tremendous difference in the outcome. I'd say your state parties made a tremendous blunder this time!