MSNBC's Shuster claimed "[c]ampaign financing ... could help McCain tarnish" Obama -- did not mention McCain may be breaking campaign finance laws
SUMMARY: MSNBC's David Shuster asserted that "[Sen. John] McCain also made clear he will continue to insist that Barack Obama stay in the public financing system for the general election as he promised," adding that the issue "could help McCain tarnish the image of Obama's political purity." But Shuster did not mention that McCain may be violating campaign finance laws by surpassing spending limits under the public financing system for the primary period.
In a report aired on the April 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball concerning Sen. John McCain's interview with host Chris Matthews on the April 15 edition of Hardball, MSNBC correspondent David Shuster asserted that "McCain also made clear he will continue to insist that Barack Obama stay in the public financing system for the general election as he promised." Shuster later added, "Campaign financing isn't exactly a headline-grabbing issue, but it could help McCain tarnish the image of Obama's political purity." But Shuster did not mention a campaign finance issue that could "tarnish" McCain's own "image of ... political purity": McCain may be violating campaign finance laws by surpassing spending limits under the public financing system for the primary period. Federal Election Commission chairman David Mason has taken the position that McCain cannot opt out of public financing in the primary without FEC approval, as McCain has attempted to do, meaning that every day that McCain spends beyond the limits of the public financing system, he could be breaking federal law.
The Associated Press reported on February 21: "The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign. Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November." The loan could have required McCain to remain in the race, regardless of whether his candidacy was viable, in order to receive matching funds to pay back the loan. A March 23 Washington Post article reported that "McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system," and a February 22 article in the Post noted that "[k]nowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison." Under the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act, violators could face fines up to $25,000 and up to five years of jail time.
As Media Matters for America has noted, several media outlets have reported McCain's criticism of Obama for Obama's purported "promise[]" to accept public financing in the general election without reporting that McCain may currently be in violation of public financing spending limits for the primary election.
From the April 16 edition of MSNBC's Hardball:
SHUSTER: But McCain also made clear he will continue to insist that Barack Obama stay in the public financing system for the general election as he promised. Obama's record haul in the primaries has the Obama campaign thinking otherwise.
[begin video clip]
McCAIN: Senator Obama a year ago signed a piece of paper that said that if the Republican nominee would take the public financing he would too.
MATTHEWS: Right, are you going to hold him to that if he gets the nomination?
McCAIN: Well, he is now --
MATTHEWS: Well, you gonna hold him to it publicly?
McCAIN: I have been trying to hold him to it.
[end video clip]
SHUSTER: Campaign financing isn't exactly a headline-grabbing issue, but it could help McCain tarnish the image of Obama's political purity. In the meantime, McCain is already mindful of general election swing states as evidenced by his eager participation in the Hardball college tour in Pennsylvania. I'm David Shuster for Hardball in Washington.
You keep at this MMFA, but ask 10 people if they care at all about campaign finance laws and who adheres to them and who breaks them, and I'd be suprised if 1 person says they do.
Most people believe it's all money and influence driven anyway, these groups and those groups with their negative attack ads, whatever?......people are just resigned to the reality of its intracacies and loopholes, they just don't care anymore, in my opinion.
Hi Tommy,
I'd care if McCain was breaking them because of his supposed stance against them. He has spent years constructing this image (which is not supported by research) and, to me, this would be another log on the fire burning that rep down.
I w
Hi Tommy,
I'd care if McCain was breaking them because of his supposed stance against them. He has spent years constructing this image (which is not supported by research) and, to me, this would be another log on the fire burning that rep down.
I would also care if Obama or HRC was breaking them because it does not show a knowledge of laws in this country which are its foundation, but, I agree, not many care.
I am just saying that with all the soiled nature of politics for many, this stinks the most......and many, not all, have just accepted it as part of the landscape of the political system we have. It's hard to get ones arms around on how it has any real impact on people's day to day lives, as so many other issues do........which is why it is so low on the radar.
Except around here.
I don't know Tommy, I think David Shuster should be suspended for this, I mean this slip-up by Davey is right up there with the Clintons whoring Chelsea out ;-)
Maybe worse!
We should be outraged!!
Good point J,
Let's see, where is that Schuster Monitor link here? Mmmm? Nope, can't find that, but I did see the Matthews Monitor. Do you think if I sent it to him he would forward it on?
CNN/Opinion poll from March 14-16, 2008.
"What of the following issues will be the most important to you when you decide how to vote for president?"
Economy-42%.....Iraq War-21%.....Health care-18%.....Terrorism-10%.....Illegal immigration-7%.....Other-1%
Yep, you're right Governor, it's right up there....oh, wait? - it's not.
Government, yes. Political campaigning, obviously not.
But nice try to conflate the two Governor, sorry.
Another semi-successful attempt to hijack the thread by Tommy, I see.
The issue at hand is not whether or not people are strongly or weakly (or un-) interested in public financing as a campaign issue. The issue is David Shuster's reporting.
On that issue he clearly deserves two slaps. One because he presented it as an issue where McCain could "tarnish" Obama without mentioning McCain's own, greater, guilt. The other because he let pass without comment McCain's statement that Obama committed himself to public financing in the general election.
But he didn't. He said, rather, that he would have discussions with the GOPper nominee to reach an agreement about finance of the campaign. If you want to go after Obama, do it on the basis that it was a very carefully phrased statement that sounded good but left a heckuva lot of wiggle room. But you can't say he committed himself to public financing, because he didn't.
Actually Larry, the issue at hand is watching MMFA keep at this topic and hope it sticks.
This one however, is apparently like a ten-year old racing down a water slide.
...without mentioning McCain's own, greater, guilt.
MMFA headline: McCain may be breaking campaign finance laws
Perhaps Davey would rather wait to mention McCain's "guilt" when it's not a may be?
Perhaps Davey would rather wait to mention McCain's "guilt" when it's not a may be?
MMFA can choose to take the journalistically proper course of saying "may be" since McCain has not been formally found guilty of campaign finance violations, but his guilt on the matter is better established than his ability to "tarnish" Obama on the issue.
But if that guilt must not be mentioned because it hasn't yet been legally demonstrated, by the same logic Shuster should not have said anything at all until after McCain had successfully used the issue against Obama, if he ever did - because until then, that too is a "may be."
The fact remains that even if we stick to the narrow "may be," for Shuster to talk about Obama's supposed vulnerability on the issue and how McCain could possibly exploit it without mentioning that McCain has his own troubles on the matter was journalistically improper.
You don't get it, Larreye.
Tommy and Jeter are simply saying... uhhhhh... well, uhhhh... oh, sh#t, I don't really get it either.
What the ef ARE they saying?
Anybody got a clue here?
Parsing I think. Being vewy vewy ernest in your word selection.
Tommy, I care a whole lot more about this issue that basketball, haircuts, flag pins, or Bosnia.
Embellishment, lies, "mis-remembering" I understand, and I weigh it against the candidate. But this is about a potential violation of the very rules that Sen. McCain is asking Sen. Obama to follow, and the media here are presenting one side and not the other. Sounds like mis-informing the public to me.
Would I love it if Sen. Obama asked Sen. McCain to see to his own house before calling out others? You bet I would.
But until then, this is every bit as valid as health care or taxes or energy...Sen. McCain's campaign could be in violation of campaign financing rules. What is the penalty for that? Can the Administration and Senate come to grips with the fact that they should compromise and appoint members to the FEC to address it? If not, will the courts do so as is dictated by FEC policy? And will this all be resolved before or after the election? I'm betting after...
No... no, that can't be it. They haven't addressed THAT reality at all. That can't be their point. Its gotta' be something else.
A LITTLE HELP HER, PLEASE!
Yeah, Wolf, but Sen. Obama said that if he were the Dem nominee he would work with the Rep nominee to form an agreement to go with public financing. Sen. Obama isn't the Dem nominee yet...
And on a second read, Mr. Schuster says "Campaign financing isn't exactly a headline-grabbing issue, but it could help McCain tarnish the image of Obama's political purity."
How does he even think to say that...acknowledging, as Tommy does, that this isn't a headline grabbing issue while pointing out that Sen. McCain's campaign will use it to generate headlines, to tarnish Sen. Obama? How does Mr. Schuster do that while ignoring the fact that there are serious questions about Sen. McCain's own campaign finance issue? Was it ignorance? I kinda doubt it since the DNC's lawsuit is in the news. So what else could it be? Mr. Schuster was sick the day the professor taught journalism?
On target MMfA - this is either ignorance, for which we should see a retraction from MSNBC, or willful conservative misinformation.
Gov.
Looking back over the links, It looks like McCain exceeded the spending limit sometime in February.
As I said in one of the countless earlier threads on this same matter, this is a lawsuit only a lawer could love.
From what I gather, McCain applied for the loan in November of last year. The loan contained language asking for collateral which included matching funds. The agreement was then modified in December and that section requiring the collateral of matching funds was removed.
I did not find the date of McCains matching funds agreement, but it looks to me like the matching funds are for spending in 2008.
So the question to me is that if the part of the loan agreement using matching funds was removed from that agreement before the the matching fund agreement goes into effect, is there any violation of that agreement?
I do not claim to be an expert, so any clarification or correction is appreciated.
ps. The letter from David Mason, Chairman of the Federal Election Commission asks for a reply from McCain regarding the questions posed by the FEC by March 7th. Does anyone know if McCain answered? If so, is there any link?
Thanks,
DTF,
Thanks. I finally found it. I appreciate your help.
On MSNBC, A.B. Stoddard asserted that if McCain "did something even nakedly partisan now, we'd all have trouble seeing it that way."
Well, I guess we should all be thankful hasn't done something nakedly partisan. If he did, reporters like Shuster might not see it that way, which might cause them to portray McCain in a favorable light that he doesn't deserve. Oh, wait...
If it was a liberal that was breaking laws that may result in jail time or even if not, what would every news channel be talking about for the entire year of 2008 for hours every day? It would make Reverend Wright coverage a picnic by comparison. The fact that McCain's lawbreaking is not being covered at all proves the conservative bias. No network will authorize a massive propaganda campaign on the Republican candidate like they do against every Democrats. Any scandal against that person must be minimized, except if they are running against someone even farther to the right.