On February 6, 2008, once his nomination was secured and his fundraising efforts began to take off, John McCain attempted to withdraw from the public financing system. In other words, he tried to do what Obama succeeded in doing. But FEC Chairman David Mason informed McCain in writing that he could not withdraw. It seems McCain had taken out a $4 million dollar loan (and availed himself of free ballot access) that was tied to the use of federal funds as a form of collateral.
On March 20, 2008, McCain held what he called a “fundraiser” at the private home of Lord Nathaniel Rothschild in London, England. The problem is that federal campaign finance law forbids foreign nationals from contributing anything of value (including money) to candidates running for public office in the United States. The public watchdog group Judicial Watch on April 24 asked the FEC to investigate whether McCain violated federal law.
Today, McCain attended a $100-per-plate luncheon in Canada, where he promoted NAFTA and touted Canadian-US relations. He also used the event to criticize Obama’s opposition to NAFTA. But aside from the tawdry Bush-like campaign remarks on foreign soil, it appears that McCain might have run afoul of the Hatch Act, which prohibits US Ambassadors from conducting partisan activity outside the United States. McCain campaign co-chair, Senator Lindsey Graham, had asked US Ambassador David Wilkins (a Bush appointee) for help, which the ambassador provided in the form of logistics, phone calls, and general advice. The DNC is pursuing the matter presently through the FOIA.
In addition to the above unethical and possibly illegal activities, McCain has also used loopholes in his own campaign finance legislation to avoid paying fair market prices for the use of a private jet over a period of several months. He paid $241,149 to use the jet from last August to February. In December, the FEC began attempting to close the loophole, but being understaffed was unable to attain the needed quorum to do so. Meanwhile, McCain continues to take advantage of a charter jet at commercial ticket prices and refuses to pony up the difference.
It is difficult to find a sufficient adjective that describes how hypocritical it is for McCain to complain about his opponent while McCain himself skirts the very edges of US laws (and maybe violates them) in a desperate effort to gain advantages over that same opponent. Meanwhile, the best McCain’s talking head surrogates on television can come up with is that checking the yes box means yes no matter how many conditions one writes out. I guess check boxes can fit on bumper stickers, and thinking above that level is too much of a hassle for McCain’s increasingly shrinking base.
Link to source about fundraising luncheon in London from Reuters.
Link to source about McCain’s thwarted attempt to withdraw from public funding in February from Election Law Blog. The blog is hosted by Richard L. Hasen, who holds the William H. Hannon Distinguished Professor of Law Chair at Loyola Law School. Here is an excerpt from the FEC letter to McCain.
By US law, a corporation is an entity unto its own. A wife and a wife’s company are two completely separate legal entities. If his wife owns the jet, there’s no problem. But if his wife’s company owns the jet (and it does), then the problems arise as cited in the links John Mace couldn’t find.
What the fuck? What do you mean links I “couldn’t find”? I never looked for any. Since when is it anyone’s responsibility but the OP to provide links for claims being made?
If you want people to participate in your thread, it would behoove you not to throw thinly veiled insults at them.
I suppose the rules must be enforced strictly to avoid every politician wiggling through every little loophole but I cannot get myself in a fuss over this.
If it were just some corporation then sure. But it is the corporation your wife owns and it is their plane. If for some reason or other the corporation technically owns the McCain’s personal car (which I know people will do for various financial reasons) should that be counted when they drive to a fundraiser?
I figure if you are lucky enough to be married to a woman who owns a company that owns a plane you should get to fly around in it. The details of why it is wrong seem overly picky (which as I said they may have to be but then stuff like this drops in).
Oh…does Cindy own the company outright or is she just a majority shareholder? My calculus changes if she is not the outright owner. If I were a stockholder in the company I would have issue with company resources being used to ferry her or her husband around on anything other than company business. Afterall that is some of my money they are using to do that and no matter if she is majority shareholder.
I’m not sure there’s an expectation of participation beyond slavish agreement.
What’s the debate, anyway?
Is it that a candidate is using legal loopholes and semantics to wiggle around campaign finance reform? Because God knows nobody ever used semantic “It’s a pledge it’s not a pledge” loopholes to weasel.
She is the majority stockholder and chair of the board. The law specifically says that planes owned by a company controlled by a candidate’s family are exempt, and to make matters more confusing, the specific holding company that owns the plan is listed as an assest of the McCains on tax filings.
Since when do news and current events constitute claims? If someone wants to participate in discussions about news and current events, it’s his responsibility to keep up. These have all been major news stories, and having to dig up links for you was frankly annoying. The least you could be is be grateful.
Screw campaign finance laws. Isn’t an executive using a corporate asset for personal use something other executives have gotten busted for?
If I were a stock holder (which I am not) she is flying around using MY money. Seems to me the plane, if paid for its use by the company, is meant for company business.
That’s the thing - the plane itself seems to be an asset of the McCains, although it’s a company plane (I think). I don’t know how that works, but that’s what it is.
They’re paying a certain rate for it…I don’t know if it’s the going rate or at cost, but it’s not a free flight.
But if the McCain’s are whipping out their Platinum AmEx cards to pay for the plane, crew, fuel and maintenance then no problem. Hope they enjoy their flight.
Here it is always incumbent upon the person putting their argument forward to provide cites as backup. Certainly any of us could Google the claims ourselves but as a matter of etiquette here the person taking a position provides the backup for it (makes sense…one person providing it for all as opposed to every reader searching for themselves).
He did provide the cites when you asked, though, and you haven’t attempted to address them, so flouncing away indignation over a side point without addressing anything on substance might seem to some to be a little…I don’t know…convenient?
I was planning to review the other cites, but at this point I think I won’t “annoy” him with reasoned debate. I’ll let him continue with his Obama adulation and his McCain bashing. Feel free to join in on that if you wish.
Not quite kosher, John. The only answer you made in #6 was a verb parsing…yes, it does say “may” but thats a mite short of a solid rebuttal, more like the prelude to the table of contents. Then you promise to return to the issues “later”, giving it a lick and a promise.
Now you claim exemption because your opposite number is too partisan and close minded to appreciate a reasoned argument. You didn’t know that then? Just found it out now, just in time to save you wasting your time crushing his argument with the facts? Facts right at your fingertips, apparentlly, but never mind that, he doesn’t deserve it?
Well, howzabout the rest of us? Jst because Lib doesn’t deserve this consideration, no reason we should be deprived of a crisply reasoned rebuttal, is there? Hell, if his cites are as weak as you say, you won’t even break a sweat.
While it is, as yet, unclear how much money was raised during the
luncheon, had the venue not been donated to the McCain campaign, the net profit
from the event would have been significantly reduced. The donation of the venue,
therefore, represents an illegal in-kind campaign contribution.Unless you would like to argue that McCain merely fantasized that he was at Lord Rothschild’s house in London, it is hard to see how the event was not in violation of US Code, Title II, Chapter 14, Subchapter 1, Section 441e, (a)(1)(A)
It shall be unlawful for–
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make–
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of
value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a
contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State,
or local electionEmphasis added to relevant parts.