# McCain in financial trouble: Dems to blame? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 23, 2008, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847 "2008-02-23T14:28:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/21 "2008-03-01T00:01:01Z")
[QUOTE=Simplicio] I doubt the penalty for breaching the campaign finance law is more then a fine… [/QUOTE] Nope, [McCain could go to jail for this:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008022102994) > [@](#): > > Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/22 "2008-03-01T00:26:38Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] The WaPo article suggests that as long as a candidate does not actually accept any Federal money, and doesn’t actually use the money as collateral then they can withdraw. [/QUOTE] What about my point? Some states allow candidates who have agreed to public financing to have free ballot access. McCain took advantage of that provision and saved himself several million dollars that he would otherwise have spent gathering signatures and filing paperwork. The current McCain position seems to be that its perfectly fine to game the system this way. Announce you’re going to opt in – take all the benefits you can short of accepting actual cash – then opt out again. Now I suppose you could dismiss this by saying “Well, all politicians try to exploit the system to get elected.” (I actually disagree, but that’s an argument for another day.) The thing is, John McCain has spent much of his career painting himself as a crusader against exactly this sort of political gamesmanship. It’s not called the “McCain-Feingold Act” for nothing. If the man has no principles when it comes down to one of his signature issues, what does he believe in? ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/23 "2008-03-01T00:39:17Z")
[QUOTE=Pochacco] What about my point? Some states allow candidates who have agreed to public financing to have free ballot access. McCain took advantage of that provision and saved himself several million dollars that he would otherwise have spent gathering signatures and filing paperwork. [/quote] If this doesn’t violate the law, then I have no problem with it. As to the McCain-Feingold Act that primarily dealt with soft money and advertising, getting on the ballot on the taxpayer’s dime wasn’t really at issue in that particular piece of legislation. I think McCain had a genuine intention to accept public financing when he opted in, the _system allows an opt-out_ if you haven’t accepted cash. Maybe it should be further restricted, but McCain is under no obligation to self-restrict himself in a way that would be disastrous to his campaign. No one has an obligation to shoot themselves in the foot. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/24 "2008-03-01T00:44:11Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Nope, [McCain could go to jail for this:](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008022102994) [/QUOTE] Ouch, missed that. For what its worth, I can’t imagine that the FEC would actually jail an active presidential candidate, and the “maybe he did, maybe he didn’t” issues with using the loan as collateral certainly gives them enough wiggle room to justify not slapping him with a harsh penalty even if they do reach quorum and find that he broke the rules. Still, the headlines of being investigated for an offense which involves jail time while the election is going on is going to hurt, even if it doesn’t come to anything. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/25 "2008-03-01T00:48:41Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I think McCain had a genuine intention to accept public financing when he opted in, the _system allows an opt-out_ if you haven’t accepted cash. Maybe it should be further restricted, but McCain is under no obligation to self-restrict himself in a way that would be disastrous to his campaign. No one has an obligation to shoot themselves in the foot. [/QUOTE] It allows you to opt out _after_ the FEC agrees you can. As the FEC hasn’t done that, it does sound like it’s illegal for McCain to overshoot the cap, regardless of whether he technically used the cash as collateral or not. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/26 "2008-03-01T00:50:50Z")
Hey, did you hear that, fellow, Dems? **Martin Hyde** himself just came out and said we have no legal obligation to blow the election! I can’t believe we never thought of that before. What a great loophole! Thanks, **Martin Hyde**! Let’s go get 'em! ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/27 "2008-03-01T01:07:49Z")
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99] Hey, did you hear that, fellow, Dems? **Martin Hyde** himself just came out and said we have no legal obligation to blow the election! I can’t believe we never thought of that before. What a great loophole! Thanks, **Martin Hyde**! Let’s go get 'em! [/QUOTE] No legal obligation, but considering Gore and Kerry, you do have some recent precedent to uphold. Gore had only to win his home state and he won the election with ease. Kerry on the other hand, well–by that time he was running against the least popular President in **SDMB** history! Now that’s tough to lose against. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/28 "2008-03-01T01:12:35Z")
[QUOTE=Simplicio] It allows you to opt out _after_ the FEC agrees you can. As the FEC hasn’t done that, it does sound like it’s illegal for McCain to overshoot the cap, regardless of whether he technically used the cash as collateral or not. [/QUOTE] I’ve never said otherwise. But I’m not entirely convinced one way or another on the issue of how the FEC is supposed to perform its duties when it is understaffed and is prohibited from making rulings while it is understaffed. Considering any Bush appointee to the commission will probably approve McCain’s request, I would not be surprised if the Democrats attempt to undermine the political process by refusing to accept any nominees at all in the hope it will torpedo McCain’s campaign. (As I said before, politics is a contact sport.) ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/29 "2008-03-01T01:30:36Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I would not be surprised if the Democrats attempt to undermine the political process by refusing to accept any nominees at all in the hope it will torpedo McCain’s campaign. (As I said before, politics is a contact sport.) [/QUOTE] Bush has had two jokers up since late 2005: (See post#2) > [@](#): > > President Bush nominated two controversial lawyers to the Federal Election Commission yesterday: Hans von Spakovsky who helped Georgia win approval of a disputed voter-identification law, and Robert D. Lenhard, who was part of a legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. The senate isn’t buying them. Bush has to come up with _acceptable_ nominees if he wants to help McCain out of this jam. I don’t think the president is _capable_ of that. ---
**Author:** ![Simplicio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Simplicio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Simplicio)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2008, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/30 "2008-03-01T01:34:47Z")
[QUOTE=Martin Hyde] I’ve never said otherwise. But I’m not entirely convinced one way or another on the issue of how the FEC is supposed to perform its duties when it is understaffed and is prohibited from making rulings while it is understaffed. [/quote] Which is why McCain is rather screwed. He can’t legally withdraw without a ruling from the FEC, and he can’t get such a ruling unless the FEC gets two more members. As I said before, I think he’ll end up deciding he has to blow through the caps and hope for his lawyers and the reluctance of the FEC to overly penalize a active Presidential Candidate to save him. I think I’d probably do the same thing in his position, but I don’t think its legal. > [@](#): > > Considering any Bush appointee to the commission will probably approve McCain’s request, I would not be surprised if the Democrats attempt to undermine the political process by refusing to accept any nominees at all in the hope it will torpedo McCain’s campaign. (As I said before, politics is a contact sport.) Maybe. As mentioned up thread, the current nomination fight precedes McCain’s current troubles, so it isn’t like the Senate is currently blocking nominees just to hurt McCain. If Bush decided to withdraw their nominees, and put forward ones that would be more acceptable to Dems…then I’m not sure what would happen. Certainly I could see the Dems continuing to block just to screw over McCain, or I could see them letting them pass in hopes they’ll find against him. Or they might let them pass just to keep the FEC from being totally toothless during the election even if they might release McCain from his public finance agreement. As an interesting aside, I went to look up the FEC on wiki, and McCain apparently introduced a bill (again, before his current difficulties) thats still pending to replace the FEC with a leaner oversight body. Makes one wonder what happens if that bill passes while this case is still disputed. Weird ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2008, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/31 "2008-05-08T21:45:31Z")
Looks like Bush has given McCain [an out](http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/05/08/bush-s-gift-to-mccain.aspx): > [@](#): > > The Federal Election Commission, you will recall, is currently unable to function because four of its six seats are vacant, thanks to a long-standing nomination dispute between the Bush administration and Senate Democrats. In what looked like a surprisingly conciliatory gesture, Bush agreed to send up a new slate of nominees. On closer inspection, though, what he’s really done is send a big favor John McCain’s way. > > Democratic election-law guru Bob Bauer explains why this is the case. The primary objection Democrats had to Bush’s old slate was that it included Hans von Spakovsky, a former Bush Justice Department official who turned the department’s Civil Rights Division into a de facto arm of the RNC. Bush, displaying his characteristically sharp logic, attempted to resolve the situation by sending up a new slate of nominees that…still includes von Spakovsky. On the plus side, Republicans now appear willing to let the Senate vote separately on von Spakovsky (previously, Mitch McConnell had insisted all the nominees be voted on together), so Democrats will have a fair chance to vote down his nomination. > > But here’s what the GOP gets in return: Bush has dropped the re-nomination of Republican commissioner David Mason. It was Mason who had raised objections to McCain’s sketchy, possibly illegal plan to opt out of public financing for the primaries despite initially accepting it and (sort of) using the public money to secure a bank loan to fund his campaign. Taking Mason out of the picture removes a major headache for McCain and lets him evade responsibility for the campaign’s questionable financial maneuvering. It also clears his path to accept public financing for the general election, which requires a functioning FEC to approve. This likely explains why Bush is acting now–as Bauer points out, making sure the FEC can do its job is not normally a Republican priority. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2008, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/32 "2008-05-08T21:56:36Z")
Oh, fuck it! Just fuck it! If that’s the worse they got, lets just settle. The game isn’t worth the candle, any way this goes, they’ll always have the option of tying it up in a committee or a court room long enough to get away with it. Forget it, Jake, its Chinatown. Let him have the money, and whup 'em anyway. They’ve always had the money advantage, pretty much. ---
**Author:** ![descamisado](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e480ec/32.png) [@descamisado](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/descamisado)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2008, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/33 "2008-05-08T22:07:05Z")
I brought of the topic on [February 22](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=9504322&postcount=27), and just like the MSM, nobody paid any attention. Trevor Potter, McCain’s lawyer at the time made contradictory statements about what they had done and whether and why they thought it was illegal. I also agree with what **Airblairxxx** said, that there should be more made of this. Not just for political haymaking but because this involves one of the main proponents of campaign reform. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [May 8, 2008, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/34 "2008-05-08T22:26:18Z")
[QUOTE=Merijeek] New thread title: How Will McCain Screwing Himself Regarding Campaign Finance Hurt The Democrats In 2008? [/QUOTE] You owe me a new Diet Coke, and a new keyboard, ya bastidge. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2008, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/35 "2008-05-09T00:33:43Z")
[QUOTE=Lightnin’] You owe me a new Diet Coke, and a new keyboard, ya bastidge. [/QUOTE] If I bow do you promise to not look down my shirt and admire my magnificent man-pecs? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2008, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/36 "2008-05-09T05:52:24Z")
[QUOTE=Squink] Nope, [McCain could go to jail for this: > [@](#): > > Knowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison. ]([http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141\_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008022102994](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/21/AR2008022103141_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008022102994)) [/QUOTE] How about this: they let the issue run through the courts til the day of the election, then Bush pardons him. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 9, 2008, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847/37 "2008-05-09T13:21:45Z")
This talk of prison is extremely premature. Probably the dirtiest race in recent memory in financial terms was the 1996 one. Bob Dole’s campaign broke the law regularly, the Clinton campaign broke it probably worse - this was the era of Chinagate. In the end both campaigns were fined by the FEC and the election results stood. I realize we have had “reforms” since then, but do you think the FEC wants to be in a position where they are seen as determining a winner? After the criticism of the 2000 Supreme Court decision? The most that will come of this is a fine of the campaign committee. Mark my words. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/mccain-in-financial-trouble-dems-to-blame/438847.md?page=1)