USA Today uncritically quoted McCain campaign saying that decision not to opt out of public financing was about "keeping his word to the American people"
SUMMARY: A USA Today article quoted Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Sen. John McCain, who said, "Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain believes in keeping his word to the American people, and he will undergo public financing for the general election." But the article did not note that while the McCain campaign, through Bounds, now says McCain will not opt out of public financing because he is "keeping his word to the American people," McCain himself previously indicated that his decision over whether to take public financing if Obama opted out would depend not on "keeping his word" but on whether it would be financially prudent to do so. Indeed, McCain senior adviser Charlie Black reportedly said, "We could sit down in July or August and say, 'Hey, we're raising a lot of money and maybe we should forgo it.' ... We don't have enough data."
In a June 20 USA Today article, reporter Fredreka Schouten quoted Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Sen. John McCain, who said, "Unlike [Sen.] Barack Obama, John McCain believes in keeping his word to the American people, and he will undergo public financing for the general election." But Schouten did not note that while the McCain campaign, through Bounds, now says McCain will not opt out of public financing because he is "keeping his word to the American people," McCain himself previously indicated that his decision over whether to take public financing if Obama opted out would depend not on "keeping his word" but on whether it would be financially prudent to do so. In a June 5 ABC World News interview, McCain asserted that if Obama opted out, his campaign might, too, and would make its decision on whether to take public financing based on "how much money we could raise" and "how much time you spend away from actually campaigning." Further, while Schouten quoted Bounds' criticism of Obama and reported that McCain "applied for the money for the primaries, but did not use it," she did not report that Federal Election Commission chairman David Mason has taken the position that McCain cannot legally opt out of public financing during the primary season without FEC approval after he signed an agreement for a loan in late 2007 that, as The New York Times reported, was "secured in part by the promise of federal matching money" in the primary. If it is found that McCain cannot opt out of public financing in the primary without FEC approval, then every day that McCain spends beyond the limits of the public financing system -- which he has already exceeded -- he could be breaking federal law.
While Schouten reported Bounds' suggestion that McCain would take public financing for the general election because he "believes in keeping his word to the American people," when asked in the June 5 interview with ABC's World News host Charles Gibson whether he would opt out from public financing if Obama did, McCain did not mention his "word to the American people." Instead, McCain replied: "I don't know. We'd have to look and see how much money -- not only how much money we could raise, but how much time you spend away from actually campaigning. That's the problem. The benefit of taking the public financing is that then you don't have to worry about the fundraising." Similarly, in an April 10 article, The New York Times reported that "campaign officials emphasize that no final decision has been made" on public financing for the general election, and quoted senior adviser Charlie Black's statement, "We could sit down in July or August and say, 'Hey, we're raising a lot of money and maybe we should forgo it.' ... We don't have enough data."
In a February 21 article, the Associated Press reported: "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." Further, in a March 23 post on The Washington Post's The Trail blog, staff writer Matthew Mosk reported that "McCain has officially broken the limits imposed by the presidential public financing system," and in a February 22 article, 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.
In the April 10 article, the Times reported that Obama chief strategist David Axelrod drew attention to McCain's actions: "Alluding to a $4 million line of credit that Mr. McCain obtained late last year, secured in part by the promise of federal matching money for the primaries, Mr. Axelrod said the rest of the primary season 'should give Senator McCain time to figure out whether he was in or out of the campaign finance system in the primary, which is still an open question.' " The loan agreement, which specifically granted to the lender "as additional collateral for the loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all of Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching fund program" 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.
From ABC News' transcript of Gibson's June 5 interview of McCain:
GIBSON: Public financing -
McCAIN: Yes.
GIBSON: -- are you going to take it?
McCAIN: Well, I certainly -- as you know, Senator Obama signed a piece of paper saying that he would take it if I would take it. I still want to take it. We haven't made a final decision if he doesn't take it, but I would hope that he would keep his word.
GIBSON: If he opts out, will you?
McCAIN: I don't know. We'd have to look and see how much money -- not only how much money we could raise, but how much time you spend away from actually campaigning. That's the problem. The benefit of taking the public financing is that then you don't have to worry about the fundraising.
And so, I haven't made a final decision. But, a little straight talk, we'd certainly lean towards it, but I would hope that Senator Obama would also keep his word.
From the June 20 USA Today article:
Obama on Thursday set aside an early promise to use public funds for the fall and became the first presidential nominee to bypass the system since it was created in 1976 after the Watergate scandal.
Republican John McCain will accept public funding for the fall campaign. He applied for the money for the primaries, but did not use it.
[...]
McCain, speaking to reporters from Iowa, said the fact that Obama was "not even willing to keep" a campaign promise "should be disturbing to all Americans."
Obama and McCain both pledged last year that they would accept taxpayer money for the general election if his opponent would do the same. Obama began stepping away from that as the primaries got underway and he shattered fundraising records. In a Feb. 20 column in USA TODAY, Obama said he would keep his pledge only if McCain also agreed to limit spending by political parties and refuse fundraising help from outside groups.
"Unlike Barack Obama, John McCain believes in keeping his word to the American people, and he will undergo public financing for the general election," spokesman Tucker Bounds said.
Obama has tapped more than 1.5 million donors and used the Internet extensively to bring in new ones. At the end of April, Obama had nearly a 3-to-1 advantage over McCain in fundraising.
Obama's a typical politician bowing to the money-god. That he's an arrant hypocrite on this issue is hardly deniable. Probably a smart move in the long run, but it's an entirely valid criticism to say that he majorly flip-flopped
I agree with Steve - Obama should be criticized for this flip-flop.
McCain can really capitalize on this flip-flop by Obama, because McCain hasn't flip-flopped on any issues thus far (except for most of them).
I dig public financing much more, it's my wish that we could use public money for all elections.
The Republican victim mentality makes me want to puke. Stop begging. Obama's a baller, the master of your game. If you had a competitive candidate you wouldn't have to be whining about the poverty of your campaign.
----------------------------------------------
Obama's a typical politician bowing to the money-god. That he's an arrant hypocrite on this issue is hardly deniable. Probably a smart move in the long run, but it's an entirely valid criticism to say that he majorly flip-flopped
"not only over the fact that their side can only nominate a sucky candidate but that he will get his ass whooped in the election... it will drive them absolutely insane. "
I think O'bama is the one having trouble getting elected. He NEEDS the funds raised through his "connections", that's why he lied to the American public. He could hardly win his own party's nomination against one of the weakest candidates to run- ever. Even the extreme left couldn't decide who to vote for, you don't really think a lying, radical loving moron will win this election, do you? He's already pandering to the money-trail and he isn't even elected yet.
Maybe he should try talking honestly to the American public, instead of lying about every issue that comes his way. The guys got more baggage than hilary and it showed when he couldn't win any mainstream leftist voter support. What voters did he win? Oh, yeah all the fringe groups LOVED O'bama. I don't think that will fly come November. Which means we will have to listen to another 4 years of liberal whining about everything they caused but can't repair, so they'll blame the republicans for the problem.
I wonder if O'bama will have a "100 days" promise like the last election cycle did. What ever happened to that promise of de-funding the Iraq war? Is that the ONLY way a liberal can win an election? By empty promises and lies??
Why is MMFA pushing this, especially in light of Obama's reversal to accept public campaign money if McCain did? Obama is smart to do this now, get it out the way, take the hit for his decision change, and he will have far more money to spend through his donations, which is the reason he did it. Why MMFA keeps at the McCain may be headed for prison stripes angle is beyond me?
Maverick??? Hahaha. McLame reminds me of the Sta-Puf Marshmallow Man only he has those stubby little arms that wiggle when he lies.
------------------------------------
Is the presumption of innocence an outdated concept to you? Us conservatives still believe in civil liberties and give the Maverick the benefit that he's innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
"he has those stubby little arms that wiggle when he lies"
Wow, you sure told him! Is that how you finish your arguement when you can't win one? By calling the victor names? Have you ever thought of sticking to argueing 'issue points' like how O'bama lied to the American public about his campaign financing? Is that how he is going to get elected...by being accepted by left wing zealots who are just like O'bama--hypocritical?
"Us conservatives still believe in civil liberties and give the Maverick the benefit that he's innocent until his guilt is proved beyond a reasonable doubt."
I know you are a satirist, Thomp, or let me put it this way, that post better be satire. With the spying on Americans, criticism of the latest SCOTUS ruling which preserves civil liberties, conservatives (at least Republicans) have very, very little ground to stand on in the civil liberties arena. Geesh!
My "liberal" label is based on the court's previous decisions, not the one in question, which I have not read. I do believe in an independent judiciary that his a co-equal branch of power with the executive and legislative. My concerns have been that the liberal court tends to believe that it is not equal to the other branches, but above them. I intend to read the latest opinion this weekend . ..
Knock it off, Steve. The Court is split right down the middle - 4 libs, 4 cons, and 1 swing vote. Why do you have an issue with that? Oh, I get it - you don't believe in a balanced court... you want it jam-packed with 9 cons who represent about 30% or so of the country and its values... how sweet... the hell with the other 70% or so, right?
After Scalia was confirmed by a unanimous vote, he has done an excellent job in objectively interpreting the constitution over all these many years. He gives me hope
Actually I do have a law degree, from a school that I think was ranked number 5 in the nation while I was there (whatever that means). Thankfully, I don't practice law though and readily admit that I am no legal scholar, and apparently, neither are you.
Of course laws are value-driven, and are supposed to reflect the values of the citizenry. Those values are to be represented by our elected officials in congress, not appointed judges. Judges are to be neutral arbiters of disputes, and are to objectively interpret the laws. It's a long-standing principle that judges are not to let their values override the will of congress, or our founding fathers.
That is absolutely hilarious, Thomp. More satire? Do me a favor, google and find me which justices have overturned Congressional laws the most. You said that you were afraid of the judiciary and executive branches grabbing too much power. You might be shocked to know Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas voted to overcome the voice of Congress more than any other judges on the SCOTUS. Which is it, Thomp? Civil liberties or no? Innocent until proven guilty for only Americans or everyone? Scalia being a good judge or the judicial branch having too much power?
"We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below."
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O’Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/06/opinion/06gewirtz.html
" Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas voted to overcome the voice of Congress more than any other judges on the SCOTUS. Which is it, Thomp? Civil liberties or no? "
Friedboy, what issues did they vote against Congress on? If Congress was trying to pass illegal/immoral issues and those men voted to keep America free of the immorality that Congress brings us, then why would you say that's a bad thing?
Until you can show actual issues that prove YOUR point, you have made NO point what-so-ever. Other than to show you aren't interested in facts/truth, only that you are good at mis-information to give a false impression of tweeked judges. So, bring your proof of those 3 judges overcoming Congress more than any other judge. WHAT issues did they support that the other judges did not? Let's see, I bet I can name one, abortion. In which case---good for them. Protecting human lives should be supported by judges when not by Congress.
Phil,
Thomp was saying that the judiciary was out of control and went against the legislature, but that he liked Scalia and his ilk. I was just showing that those three went against Congress more than anyone else.
Here is an example of the type of cases that Scalia goes against the Constituation in:
But they do not mention the 11th Amendment, which has been twisted beyond its own plain words into a states' rights weapon to throw minorities, women and the disabled out of federal court.
The 11th Amendment says federal courts cannot hear lawsuits against a state brought by "Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State." But it's been interpreted to block suits by a state's own citizens - something it clearly does not say. How to get around the Constitution's express words? In a 1991 decision, Justice Scalia wrote that "despite the narrowness of its terms," the 11th Amendment has been understood by the court "to stand not so much for what it says, but for the presupposition of our constitutional structure which it confirms." If another judge used that rationale to find rights in the Constitution, Justice Scalia's reaction would be withering. He went on, in that 1991 decision, to throw out a suit by Indian tribes who said they had been cheated by the State of Alaska.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html
Here's another way his constitutional interpretation is iffy:
In his view, the 14th Amendment prohibits Michigan from using affirmative action in college admissions, but lets Texas make gay sex a crime. (The Supreme Court has held just the opposite.) He is dismissive when inmates invoke the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment to challenge prison conditions. But he is supportive when wealthy people try to expand the "takings clause" to block the government from regulating their property.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html
Terri Schiavo is another way. Scalia has come down in favor of mandated school prayer as well.
Directly against Congress, Scalia voted against the Guns Free Schools Act (United States v. Lopez)
In 1997, Scalia and Thomas joined another 5-4 decision, this one striking down the part of the Brady Act that called on state officials to conduct background checks on handgun purchasers until a national system was in place. (Printz v. United States)
In a narrow 5-4 decision in Board of Trustees at Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett (2001) ruled unconstitutional the part of the ADA that authorized disabled state employees to recover damages for illegal discrimination by state agencies.
A 5-4 majority struck down the portion of the Violence Against Women Act that provides a federal remedy for victims of sexual assault and violence. (United States v. Morrison, 2000)
Two more votes in accordance with the Scalia-Thomas decision would have declared unconstitutional the provision of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) authorizing state employees to recover damages for violations of their rights under FMLA, reversing the decision in Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs (2003)
In Hibbs v. Winn (2004),250 the Court ruled 5-4 that the federal Tax Injunction Act does not prohibit federal courts from deciding challenges to the constitutionality of state tax laws and ordering injunctions or other relief, explaining that the law only forbids challenges where state taxpayers try to get federal court orders allowing them to avoid paying taxes. Justices Scalia and Thomas joined a dissent by Justice Kennedy arguing that the statute forbids all federal court challenges to state tax laws, even if those laws violate the Constitution by discriminating on the basis of race or promoting religion.
Forgot the site:http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=11158
Thomp,
Please show a non-Republican critical voice on this issue. You mention that "innocent until proven guilty" is important to you. Does that just apply to Americans?
Since you think the "liberal" court wrote something precedent free, please cite the precedent that Scalia cited in his dissent. Good luck finding any!
That was an interesting article, Fried. I was unaware that congress has been disregarding the constitution with such flippancy. I'm all the more grateful now for having "constitutionalists" like Scalia and Thomas to rein in the renegade congress. I suspect most of the cases in which Scalia and Thomas were compelled to rein in congress involved federalism issues and the commerce clause.
I printed out the Court's recent opinion, but have not had time to read it yet. However, I find it highly unlikely that Scalia's dissent will be lacking in constitutional principle or case precedent.
"Presumption of innocence? Yeah, right. Just like down in Guantonomo Bay"
When they are Americans they will get American rights. When they act like humans they should get human rights. They haven't been able to prove either one, yet.
So, Phil, are you saying that all of those picked up and brought to Guantanamo are guilty until proven innocent? Please correct me if I misunderstand. Also, how do you think that these people should be handled. At least 82 have been released so far.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/28/AR2007042801145.html
Why MMFA keeps at the McCain may be headed for prison stripes angle is beyond me?
I'm just thinking - if McCain was a Democrat, that's just the angle you'd be seeing played time and again on every Fox "News" show. So what's wrong with MMFA playing their same game?
And another consequence to implying that McCain is "keeping his word", is to set up the grounds for perhaps him changing his mind: in which case, they can say he merely "he didn't keep his word", and then point to Sen. Obama, and say "just like he didn't!"
But on the other hand, if we said instead of "keeping his word", that John McCain was simply "OBEYING CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAW" (which is what the man's obligation truly is in this matter), if that was what was said, then if John McCain changed his mind, we wouldn't say "just like he [Sen. Obama] did!"
We'd say John McCain BROKE THE LAW.
Make it sound like it's not the LAW, but merely "your word"... then when you break it, you can say you "broke your word: just like he did!"... instead of BREAKING THE LAW.
...which Sen. Obama has not done, because the LAW was not his obligation in this matter, as it is to John McCain.
"John McCain believes in keeping his word to the American people"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA H AHA HA H AH AH AHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Doh! I think I just pulled something!
I expected Obama's flip-flop would be excused here, so no surprise there.
I also know that if McCain had done the exact same thing the outrage here would be deafening. No surprise there either.
And I just know folks here would be claiming McCain was trying to buy the Oval Office. But would never consider that when it comes to Obama.
Now having said all that, seriously who gives a crap how either finance their campaigns? I don't care who outspends who.
All I want to hear is where each candidate stands on the issues. And I'm hoping the amount of $$ won't matter, the message will.
Heru the troll arrives to drop his one-liner turds all over the threads. Your posts rarely address the topic or offer anything worth reading...
But at least you're consistent.
Excuse, did I miss something? Did Senator Obama "give his word" at some point to go with public financing? Maybe he did but, if so, I must have missed it.
My take? John McCain knows he can't raise enough money, and doesn't have the time or tempermenmt for the additional appearances that would be required in what would be an losing battl;e anyway. (That's the battle for $$$ now, not necessarilty votes.) (BTW, is "campaigning" really that different from "fund-raising"? Don't both involve going somewhere and giving a speech, getting your message out there?) So he's just taking the easy way out. He's "mailing it in" for the campaign, and he'll probably get the trouncing that that decision, along with his innability to compete with Senator Obama, warrants.
The way I see it, Obama's campaign contributions don't come in the form of PAC's or lobbyists, but comes from the average American giving $20, $30, or however much they can afford, which, to me at least, is a true publicly financed campaign.
And it's not like this is some big surprise, he'd been hinting about it for months, and not only that, but he wrote a rather lengthy disclaimer on that original questionnaire that McCain failed to live up to (of course, only until after Obama already came out saying he wouldn't take public funding.)
I agree with NiceguyEddie, I don't think it's accurate to say that Obama promised to comply with public financing. He marked yes on a questionnaire, but added to it that he would pursue it with his opponent. In discussions afterward, he provided more detail. He said he would discuss it with his opponent, but wanted to have the conditions include spending by the Parties and independent groups on candidates' behalf.
I believe there is a reasonable case to be made that this decision doesn't reflect a reversal at all.
In addition, with his campaign funded almost entirely by private citizens, he has achieved de facto public financing if not official public financing. After all, the idea behind campaign finance reform is to remove the influence of big money from buying candidates. With the contributions Obama is receiving, who has gained any undue influence with him? The general public? Aren't they who a President should be answering to?