digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at firedoglake.com

McCain Is Now A Campaign Finance Criminal

firedoglake.com — According to the latest Federal Election Commission report, John McCain has now spent $58.4 million dollars. McCain applied for public financing, and according to FEC chairman David Mason (in a letter to McCain), he can't withdraw without permission of the FEC. So he is now legally in violation of campaign finance law.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • eurekaspringsar, on 03/24/2008, -35/+69Prisoner McCain, not president!
    • 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -30/+25the last time I checked.. a few weeks ago.. both Obama and Clinton had pools of money that was well over 200 percent bigger than McCain's. Talk about really trying to force the issue.
      http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/
      • CryRightardCry, on 03/24/2008, -23/+17Hey, way to pretend you don't get it and be a dishonest prick while you are at it.
        What an asshole.
        You understand how it's different, but you'll play the ignorant rightard.
        "Loser" does not adequately describe your low character.
        Or did you think anyone was dumb enough to fall for that crap?
        You rightards may be clueless, the rest of us are aware of how McCain got himself in trouble.
        • cli006, on 03/24/2008, -13/+15"rightards" lmao. You managed to call the guy a dishonest prick, an asshole, an ignorant rightard, a dumb loser and you can't even manage to back up anything you said with a valid argument?

          Give me a break, share some of those pills you're popping. So who is really clueless here?
        • 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -9/+8The liberal internet attack machine.. just about right on time.. I could set my watch by it... They're just in the 'planting false seeds' phase right now.. you know 'dont over do it and drive people away' just yet.
          • RexStJames, on 03/24/2008, -7/+5Are you guys for real? Do you seriously not understand what this article is all about?
            Just in case you're really that dumb, I'll spell it out for you:
            - McCain accepted public financing.
            - If you accept public financing, you can spend no more than $54 million on your primary bid.
            Thus, McCain has violated campaign finance law.

            Now go take your "liberal internet attach machine" ***** and blow it out your ass. It shouldn't take a liberal to understand something as simple as this.
          • RexStJames, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2(Digg comment system and editing comments is borked.)
            The only confusion is about whether McCain is still bound by these rules. He didn't take any money, but he can't withdraw without approval, which he hasn't gotten. The commission would have to vote to allow him to withdraw, which they haven't, and in fact they have four vacancies and thus not enough members for a quorum to allow such a vote. (source: http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03 ...
          • PolishLogic, on 03/25/2008, -1/+6Show me where McCain accepted the public financing.

            You seem to be confusing "qualifying for" with "accepting". Must have missed this paragraph of the actual story too:

            "McCain has now spent $58.4 million in his primary bid, surpassing the $50 million limit he would have faced if he participated in the public financing system he had been certified to join. McCain has decided not to accept the public matching funds, but the FEC wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan he obtained late last year. Bank and campaign lawyers have said McCain did not."

            I'll spell it out for you:
            -McCain has decided not to accept the public matching funds
            -FEC wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan
            -Bank and campaign lawyers have said McCain did not.

            Now until there is tangible proof stating otherwise, blow it out your ass. Jesus, the boston.com story says as much in the second ***** paragraph. He qualified for the program, but decided not to take part in it. That's almost like saying you qualify for a pre-approved credit card, but you decide to throw the offer in the trash. Now does this, in your eyes, mean that you now possess that credit card?
          • RexStJames, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1"You seem to be confusing "qualifying for" with "accepting". Must have missed this paragraph of the actual story too:"
            Right and wrong. He did not take the money, so when I said he "accepted" public financing, I was wrong. But he did not simply "qualify for" it, he applied for it. To take your credit card analogy, it's not like he was "pre-approved" for a credit card. He filled out a credit card application and was then approved. Thus he is bound by the rules he agreed to in the application. From TFA:
            "McCain applied for public financing." He didn't just magically qualify for it. He actively applied for it.
            He applied for public financing, so he is bound by the rules. He can get out of it by requesting a withdraw, which he has, but his withdraw has not yet been approved by the committee. Yeah, he announced he would withdraw from the program. That's not enough. He needs to have it approved. At this point it simply cannot be approved because of a lack of sufficient members on the committee, but even if the committee did have the members it's not clear that his withdraw will be approved, since it's possible he used the loan as collateral. That's the part that's up for debate.
          • PolishLogic, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Well unless Obama wants to drop the hold on von Spakovsky and allow the committee to confirm the outstanding members, we won't know because they won't be able to approve or deny the withdrawal and get access to the bank documents.

            As of this moment, the bank and the campaign have said that it wasn't used as collateral. So as of now, that's all we have to go on. Which means that everything else about this entire story is nothing more than speculation. Unless of course one takes firedoglake.com as gospel (which in my opinion is ridiculous, considering their spin level). The site appears to me, based on it's past stories, to be nothing more than an over-glorified blog full of nothing but out of context sound bites and pure opinion. Seeming to live up to the label of "liberal internet attack machine" that 5urr3al5am stated.

            An excellent, well spelled out rundown of the whole thing is here: http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/id.514/blog_de ...
      • Terr01, on 03/24/2008, -5/+16I accidentally dugg you up. Crap.

        The problem is not "how much money you have".

        The problem is that McCain *used benefits from the public funding system* even if he didn't take the cash itself. Furthermore, he used that cash as a collateral for a loan. He DID get free stuff out of it that wasn't cash but had value, like guaranteed entry on some ballots.
        • 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -8/+2baa-- can't work the internet.. hanging chad..take back my vote I'm too stupid
      • SC4RP, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3How about a guarantied entry into prison!!
        • PolishLogic, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2For what, exactly? Not committing a crime?

          Wow, so much for not letting your political ideology taint your judgment.
          • SC4RP, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1I am an independent! What the Republ--crets have done to this country is a crime. They should go to jail for.
    • jabberwolf, on 03/24/2008, -31/+32OMFG - HE APPLIED BUT DIDNT TAKE ANY FUNDS
      Will you idiots knock off this dead end story!
      (burried - yet again- for still being inaccurate! )
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/24/2008, -19/+28He got a loan based on his application.

        Will you idiots quit making excuses for McCain's crimes!
        • PolishLogic, on 03/24/2008, -7/+8Did you even read the entire article? I think not, or you probably wouldn't have missed this little tidbit (especially the last sentence):

          "McCain has now spent $58.4 million in his primary bid, surpassing the $50 million limit he would have faced if he participated in the public financing system he had been certified to join. McCain has decided not to accept the public matching funds, but the FEC wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan he obtained late last year. Bank and campaign lawyers have said McCain did not."
        • computrius, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6"Bank and campaign lawyers have said McCain did not."

          Interesting how the linked article conveniently left that part out of their quote of the other article :)
          • PolishLogic, on 03/24/2008, -2/+5Not really, when you consider what a gigantic piece of pseudo-journalistic ***** firedoglake.com is. Yet it's constantly cited on digg as though it's as prestigious as the BBC or CNN.

            It's sad really. Might as well get political news from the National Enquirer, if somebody is going to get it from that site.
      • RepubOperative, on 03/24/2008, -13/+7raybury "Obama is delaying a fair vote on an FEC nominee, which has left the commission unable to do its job, including approving or declining McCain's withdraw from public funding."
        • olik, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3You're all mixed up. Obama put a hold on one of many FEC members that would be required to settle the issue, and he did so in January, long before McCain looked like he had a shot, and certainly before it was even concievable the he would opt out of public funding.
          • PolishLogic, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Sort of just semantics though, Obama can drop the hold, get this guy on the FEC, and then the FEC can launch it's investigation and subpoena the loan documents to see whether or not it was used as collateral. From there, they must then solve the interpretation of what that means exactly. Because using it for collateral still leaves ambiguity as to whether or not that is essentially McCain's way of accepting the matching funds.

            So many complexities to this, so many ways to interpret the whole thing, that I'd reason to guess that you'll never get a definitive answer to the whole thing. If in fact the loan was secured with McCain's ability to qualify for the matching funds. Although, as the bank and McCain's camp currently claim, no such collateral was used.

            I see this whole thing as nothing more than an inconvenient distraction that keeps all candidates involved from talking about issues.
      • BeforeSputnik, on 03/24/2008, -3/+15But he also used his Federal-Funds-Candidate status to get onto the ballots of a number of states, without gathering signatures. So if he claims to not be part of the Federal Funds program then he should'nt have been included in those states' primaries. He used the benefits of the program, therefore he should be held to it's rules.
        • PolishLogic, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3Research it again. He was given a spot on the Ohio ballot because he qualified for the matching funds program, NOT because he was actually in the program. Now people are bitching because they feel that in doing so it meant McCain accepted the program, even though he never actually accepted anything other than the ballot spot. This whole story is basically held by the small thread of interpretation of ones actions.

          Two completely different things that are being loosely tied together. Of course we'd have an answer if Obama hadn't put a permanent hold on the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky to the FEC.
          • Timetheos, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2Sounds like McCain is a welfare queen trying to game the system.
      • jabberwolf, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5No, he APPLIED for a loan, he was approved, but STILL has not taken any.

        "He Federal-Funds-Candidate status to get onto the ballots of a number of states" - sorry bad argument as you do not need "Federal-Funds-Candidate status" to get onto Ballots.

        OK anything else you guys really have a hard time understanding? Anything? Anyone? Ferris??!?!!!
        • kolobcreek, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2Hey everyone look the Liberal Extremist Propaganda Squad is out in full force.
        • MindStalker, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1I agree this story is stupid, BUT yes "Federal-Funds-Candidate status" (though probably has a different name) is an issue. In almost every state you have to get several thousand signatures in order to appear on the ballot, OR you can qualify for Federal Matching Funds and get instantly on several states ballots. So for (I think it was just 3 states) several states he didn't spend the money to pay people to collect signatures. Really not a big deal, as right now he isn't really in the primary anymore, he is now fighting for the general, its all technicalities.
    • jonnyboy1544, on 03/24/2008, -12/+26Don't bring McCain into this, we're still on Obama's preacher damn it!

      :)
    • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -12/+12But lets ignore the ridiculous spending by the democratic camp... *rolls eyes*
      • thatsmyaibo, on 03/24/2008, -9/+10I'm amazed you are getting dugg down for being honest. It shows diggers don't care about facts if they don't support their opinions.
        • olik, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2He's getting dugg down for utterly missing the point. It's not about massive spending, if McCain wanted to go that route he should not have applied for matching funds and then used those funds as collateral for loans; it's about violating campaign finance rules that McCain himself wrote.
      • HealthyElijah, on 03/25/2008, -1/+4But lets ignore the ridiculous spending by the democratic camp

        We love Obama because he wants to raise our taxes to! Oh and he voted for the thought crime bill! Yippee!
        • RagdollOp, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3Yippee!!! Plus, he goes to a racist church and his wife hates the USA! Double Yippee!!
    • cbuddha42, on 03/24/2008, -4/+10TL;DR Version: McCain sucks but didn't break the law. He didn't take any of the money. He used his eligibility to reduce the bank's risk and thus get a bigger loan on better terms. Now he collected more than the spending limit he isn't eligible but doesn't need help paying back the loan, so everyone is happy except some people whining that you shouldn't be able to use eligibility as collateral.

      Ok look. McCain was eligible for some federal funds. If you take the funds then there's a cap on your spending. Since McCain thought he might be able to raise enough money to break that limit without the federal funds, he didn't take any of the money. However, he needed spending cash, so he took out a loan.

      Now when you take out a loan the bank likes to know they're going to get their money back, and the better you can guarantee your means to repay or otherwise compensate the bank, the better terms you can get on the loan. This is why a house or car loan generally has a lower APR than a general purpose loan which has a lower APR than a credit card. Another way of increasing your perceived ability to pay back the loan is having someone with better credit cosign the loan with you.

      Basically, the bank is interested in your ability to guarantee that you'll have the funds to pay back the loan. If you win the lottery and decide to take the payout over 20 years but want to buy a house right now, it's very easy to get a loan because the banks know that you'll be getting a huge check every month/year for the next 20 years.

      All McCain did is go to the bank and say "look, you know I'm good for this money because I'll either get it in campaign contributions or from the federal government." Effectively, he had the feds cosign his loan saying if he couldn't raise the money himself then he would get money from their program and could use it to pay back the loan. Thus, it was much lower risk for the bank than just betting on his ability to raise the money.

      Since he never took any of the money, he is not part of the program and not governed by its rules. He simply leveraged his eligibility for the program to reduce the bank's risk.

      PS. McCain is a ***** choice for pres and 100 years in Iraq is quite possibly one of the worst ideas of a presidential candidate in the last 100 years.
      • buddhistMonkey, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4Two things. First, using the promise of matching funds as collateral to obtain a loan is considered a material advantage, which for all intents and purposes is the same as spending it. The campaign finance rules are very clear on this. Second, McCain used the promise of matching funds to obtain free ballot access in a number of states, which otherwise would have cost his campaign millions of dollars. The Democratic National Committee has filed a complaint against McCain with the FEC for exactly this reason.
    • rholland356, on 03/24/2008, -8/+3McCain't gonna be president! McCain't gonna be president!
    • xen0blue, on 03/24/2008, -8/+5thats a real nice thing to say about a former POW, asshole
      • Zaphrod, on 03/24/2008, -3/+4Oh, so because he was once a POW means he now can't be a criminal?
        • PolishLogic, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5Do yourself a favor and use google news to read up on what exactly this is about. There's nothing criminal with what McCain did. (or according to the bank doing the lending: what he didn't do).

          On second thought, just continue to jump to half-***** conclusions based on a misleading title to a misleading opinion piece on a website that is known for being blatantly misleading. I'm sure it will suit your tastes better.
          • DanOnTheMoon, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2All three of these CFR douches are criminals, as far as I care.
          • brycelb, on 03/25/2008, -2/+2And there it is. Aren't you late for a truther meeting.
        • Timetheos, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1You mean act like a Republican?
      • dzero, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1i'm with zaphrod, just because you were a POW doesn't exempt you from the law... I don't think he broke any laws, but i wouldn't give him a mulligan just because he was a prisoner in vietnam. Respect I'd give, exemption from the law, never.

        i think it's ridiculous that we (and other countries for that matter) have diplomatic immunity, let alone the fact that we seem to deliver a slap on the hand to anyone that grosses over $250k.
    • dk911, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5McCain's a Republican -- nuff said? No? Okay, he's a Republican that is running for President? Still not enough? He doesn't agree with 99% of diggers.... There -- does that answer your questions?
      I mean, honestly people... you can't come to Digg and expect sympathy for a Republican even if he was doing right. The one reason Ron Paul is recognized is because his view on Iraq falls in line with 99% of diggers.
    • rosco01, on 03/25/2008, -6/+1I love how every major article that is critical of McCain and factually correct gets warning-tagged by the leghumpers.
      • RagdollOp, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3Show some facts.
      • PolishLogic, on 03/25/2008, -1/+3This article (or blog entry as I call it) is incredibly misleading using out of context pieces of facts. It is NOT a fact that he used the qualification for matching funds as collateral. If you'd have read the article this "blog entry" is citing, you'd see that this was pointed out. The bank said he DID NOT do so. Third paragraph from the bottom of the Yahoo news piece, in plain english:

        "...FEC wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan he obtained late last year. Bank and campaign lawyers have said McCain did not."

        That's pretty clear, is it not?
        • Timetheos, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Weasel-word your way out of this:
          "John McCain's cash-strapped campaign borrowed $1 million from a Bethesda bank two weeks before the New Hampshire primary by pledging to enter the public financing system if his bid for the presidency faltered, newly disclosed records show."

          http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

  • Bustednuckles, on 03/24/2008, -20/+168Hello?
    Reporter type people?
    Do your jobs.
    • zephyr42, on 03/24/2008, -16/+8The people over at FAUX News especially would never do anything to tarnish this *sterling* candidate.
      • badqat, on 03/24/2008, -6/+8Because Fox supports Hillary, foo...
      • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -7/+7The faux tag makes it easier to spot the left wing idiots.

        These type of people usually subscribe to firedoglake, crooksandliars, dailykooks, and rawstory for their source of unbiased reporting.
        • zephyr42, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1lol.... I go to Reuters for my news, and no I'm not a liberal.
    • coit, on 03/24/2008, -11/+36Hello, internet reader? Not everything you read is true. That is all.

      • Monkeywithacold, on 03/24/2008, -5/+19actually, everything that makes it to the front page of digg is true.
        its science.
    • Cyrus042, on 03/24/2008, -6/+15If you got your news from more places than Digg you would know that this story is old as dirt and that it's been closely reviewed by the MSM and all other types of reporters. There's been plenty of panels who have talked about this issue.
      • thatsmyaibo, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5Digg is a novelty, not a news source.
    • 007brendan, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Digg isn't the end all for news, but this story really is true.
  • Erich100, on 03/24/2008, -56/+54Seeing that smug piece of ***** being walked out of court in shackles would be a beautiful sight.
    • Mrdudeperson, on 03/24/2008, -18/+9And then the water boarding....
      • forgiste, on 03/24/2008, -19/+7Dude, hasn't he already been waterboarded? I mean he was a POW... supposedly
        • manitoba98xp, on 03/24/2008, -4/+31I'm digging you down for the "supposedly". It's accepted that he was a POW in Vietnam. He's not my favourite presidential candidate, but don't downplay what he has, in fact, suffered.
          • bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -5/+6And even after being tortured, he thinks we should continue using those tame tactics against other people too.

            If torture gets such great information, I wonder just what he spilled while captured.
            --------------------------
            "While McCain has acknowledged that he gave his captors some information beyond his name, rank, and serial number, he has also repeatedly said that he divulged "no useful information," and he has described in detail the considerable amount of false information that he instead provided."
            http://mediamatters.org/items/200512090006
            -----------------------------------
            So let's keep getting that disinformation out of the prisoners, guys!
      • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8He fought for his country and was tortured in the process. Quit being an ass
        • MrCobaltBlue, on 03/24/2008, -6/+3Uh no. He "fought" in a foreign war that we had no business being in which was started under false pretenses (wow, history does repeat itself!) where he incompetently crashed 2 planes and got caught by enemy combatants. THEN he was tortured and gave up his fellow PoWs like a coward.
          • CZzyzx41, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2I'd hardly call the guy a coward. A terrible candidate to lead this country maybe...but coward? C'mon.
          • cwabray, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2He ratted out all of his comrades, who now hate him

            http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnmccain.com/

            And he led the charge to stop any searches for POW's. Ever consider why he'd do that? Because he knew that if they were ever found, they would expose him for selling them down the river.

            Beyond the favorable treatment he got by his 'captors', even if he was tortured Thank God for just fruits. You get what you deserve while bombing innocent civilians for a living.
    • DannoSpeaks, on 03/24/2008, -8/+14Shackles? This is white collar crime, are you new?
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/24/2008, -9/+8It's not even a crime! It's trumped up nit-picking wishful thinking from firedoglake
    • imightbewrong, on 03/24/2008, -10/+8for spending too much money on campaigning?
      why is there even a cap?
      • BlakeEM, on 03/24/2008, -0/+18it's his own law
      • eean, on 03/24/2008, -0/+7It's only if you agree to accept public campaign finance money or if you use future public money to secure a loan. McCain did the latter.
        • BeforeSputnik, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6He also used it to get onto State ballots without gathering signatures.
  • quesi, on 03/24/2008, -14/+3...and we ALL KNOW what that means.
    • MonsterChaOS, on 03/24/2008, -16/+13that nothing will happen, and it will be the democrats making something of nothing if it does?
      • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/24/2008, -7/+5Breaking the law is nothing? Oh yeah, breaking the law is nothing for Republicans...
        • moxanot, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2didn't read the article. he didn't break the law, it says in the second paragraph. there are only 2 paragraphs...
      • CrazedLeper, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1Just what I was thinking. Clearly, if his questionable citizenship has been overlooked, so can every other way he's unqualified. Have you seen this?

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_-rnJxo0Fo
  • saska, on 03/24/2008, -11/+36This would have a lot more impact if he hadn't already locked up the nomination.
    • theaceoffire, on 03/24/2008, -8/+3^_^;;; yeah, I doubt they would hand it to Hucklebee at this point.
    • jroyale, on 03/24/2008, -3/+13Right... because it's ok to be a President with a felony record... if you're a republican.
    • MCBAIKO, on 03/24/2008, -11/+7Actually the MSM would have you BELIEVE that McLame has locked up the nomination... Ron Paul is STILL in the race... ALOT can happen between now and September!
      • thatsmyaibo, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8HAHAHAHA seriously? I thought we were over the Ron Paul thing.
      • saska, on 03/24/2008, -0/+7I'm gonna go ahead and NOT hold my breath between now and when the Republican National Convention overturns the popular vote and nominates Ron Paul, OK? No hard feelings.

        I *like* Ron Paul. I met him on the stump. But please, if you really believe this, don't make such an eminently reasonable and smart man look bad.
        • MCBAIKO, on 03/26/2008, -0/+2How could I be making Dr. Paul "look bad" by stating an honest fact? Ron Paul IS still in the race. And who knows what will happen between now and September? Seems to me that people who think that they can predict the future with enough certainty to give up on the candidate they believe in before they are officially out of the race are the crazy ones. How can my supporting Ron Paul while he is still a candidate make him "Look Bad"? I'd think that people like you who have given up on him while he is still running are the ones making him "look bad".
      • l0k0, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2I have a feeling MCBAIKO failed math class a few times.
        • MCBAIKO, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1No I didn't fail math class, but you OBVIOUSLY failed Government class if you think that McCain has wrapped up the nomination just because he has "won" the popular votes in many states. Many delegates that are being counted in the 1,191 needed are UNBOUND DELEGATES! Do you even know what that means? Besides the primary and caucas votes are not much more than a straw poll. The delegates are the ones who cast the actual votes. I guess that you are also PSYCHIC and know for certain exactly what is going to happen between now and September regarding McCain's health, any criminal charges, acts of God, WHATEVER... The point that I was trying to make was that Ron Paul is still in the race, and in the unlikely event that McCain is taken out of the race then Ron Paul could possibly get the nomination. Stranger things have happened.
          • l0k0, on 03/27/2008, -1/+1So the primary and caususes are just straw polls? Did you forget the /sarcasm tag or are you really that thick?
      • buddhistMonkey, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Your scenario for Ron Paul capturing the presidency, does it by chance involve a meteor crashing into St. Paul on the day of the Republican National Convention?
      • brycelb, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Do you make a living as a stand up comic? You've got good material.
    • lrdntwnd, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4if McCain is indicted, I'm pretty sure the Republicans would consider someone else for their nomination....
    • d03boy, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2He's not locked it up until he gets all his delegates at the convention.. if you think there is some law that has stated that he has them all, you're wrong.
      ie: Bound doesn't really mean what you think it means
      • MCBAIKO, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Thank you! That is exactly what I was trying to say and everyone thinks it's a joke.
    • connorf, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2He won't be much of candidate when he is in jail. Bet cha didn't know that... did'ya.
    • InActionJackson, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2ron paul is still in it. if mccain drops out or is forced out paul will be the only one left. so no he hasn't locked up the nomination, its just very likely that he'll get it unless something crazy happens between now and the convention, something like him getting arrested for financial fraud...
  • bsdboy, on 03/24/2008, -36/+69MSM only cares to bash Obama, Hillary and McCain seem to get "passes"
    • markgl, on 03/24/2008, -10/+14what?
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/24/2008, -11/+25Are you ***** in the head? The MSM LOVES Obama!
    • JimSwarthow, on 03/24/2008, -9/+14yeah no kiddin'! seems like you can't turn on the TV these days w/out hearing something slanderous about Barama and hyper-positive about Hill and Mc

      /in Bizzaro World
      • kettlehead, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3Whew! I'm glad the constant out-of-context repeating of "God damn America" and "Typical white person" were all in my imagination!
        • JimSwarthow, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2yes, the whole context thing really bugs me too. I mean unless you were in the room when he said 'White people created AIDS as a means to extinguish the Black race' then you really have no room to comment. obviously when the good reverend said that what he actually meant was 'Jesus loves the little children and please leave a little something in the offering plate on the way out the door'. - context folks! it's all about context!

          /rolleyeyes
        • JimSwarthow, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1uh, not offering treatment and creating a disease out of thin air for the purpose of extinguishing an entire race of human beings is about as synonymous as apples and frying-pans. anyone making that ridiculous leap in logic isn't interested in the truth they're interested in finding an excuse to hate. - if that passes for "context" then you're farther gone than I assumed. dickweed.
          • kettlehead, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1I'm not saying it's correct assumption to draw, but the sting of heavy racial segregation is still a very recent reality. Jeremiah wright was around in the times of lynchings in the south. We can not begin to presume we understand that pain; but go ahead and judge people willy-nilly if you want. Free country and all that.
        • JimSwarthow, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1fair enough - I'll go ahead and keep callin' bullsh*t on these racist pigs and you go ahead and keep apologizing for them
          • kettlehead, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1you're just DYING to be offended, aren't you? why don't you suck it up? If you think their situation isn't or hasn't been so bad, and they should stop trying to speak up, why don't you be the man and start first?

            I've noticed that's a huge problem with this country, everyone is ACTIVELY LOOKING for ***** to get offended about.
    • eean, on 03/24/2008, -2/+11Actually McCain is getting a pass in general. Like, he hardly gets any coverage. Which makes sense, after hanging out in the Middle East he is just going to be fund-raising for the next couple of months. While the media covers the "tight Democratic race" (even though Obama has the race locked-up, the Media /do/ live in bizarro world and like to pretend it's still open).
      • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6He is given a pass for now because the Republican nomination is decided...

        This will not be the case once we head to the general election
    • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -7/+8Are you kidding? The MSM has given Obama a huge pass. The coverage he is experiencing now pales in comparison to the scrutiny that Hillary and the Republican candidates have received.

      The media is in love with Obama, and continues to print glowing stories about him and defend him from criticism.
    • Ozzsanity, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5What does MSM stand for?
    • anillop, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3I wish to god that people could actually talk about the issues and not this sort of ***** that seams to be all everyone cares about.
    • MT85, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1Hillary gets a pass? That's news to me. And frankly, the only reason why the MSM doesn't bother to take shots at McCain is because, until the democratic race is decided, he's more or less irrelevant.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2you ***** pussy. stop whining like a little girl, and vote who you are gonna vote for. the MSM has shown equal amounts of love and hate for everyone at different times, so seriously, stop being such a whiny pussy.
    • j33buscr1p3s, on 03/25/2008, -0/+0Look, I'm an Obama maniac. I've gone door to door for him and have donated twice to my first presidential campaign despite being a poor college student. That being said I'm quickly frustrated with anyone's portrayal of the "MSM" being against any certain candidate because it seems to me that people make these claims only when the media is picking on "your" candidate.

      I don't believe that the media has any inherent bias to one candidate. The only thing the MSM is biased to is the $. They'll report on whatever sells. It's the reason that Hillary is still in the race despite the fact that she's statistically less likely to win than before Ohio and Texas. It's the reason that Jeremiah Wright is such an issue. It's also the reason that the NYT, MSNBC, and CNN all had stories today about McCain's alleged crossover to Democrats in 2001 and possibly as Kerry's VP.

      The MSM is about viewers, and viewers respond to controversy. There doesn't seem to be much discrimination in the way that MSM decides what to air, they just want to make as much money as possible. And in fact, the reason that MSNBC, CNN, and Fox put different spins on the same story is because they understand they have different demographics. There's plenty of room to criticize the MSM based upon the drive of profit alone, we don't need pretend that this is about bias towards one candidate.
  • DErallde, on 03/24/2008, -12/+9This will all fade away by the time the November elections come to pass, it might make things slightly more difficult for him, but he still has a chance, the fact that the Democratic primaries haven't even ended means this doesn't matter in the whole of things.
    • RepubOperative, on 03/24/2008, -2/+10They said he didn't have a chance in the Republican primaries too.
  • Shiftgood, on 03/24/2008, -10/+24what a magical time to be alive.
  • Infidelcastr0, on 03/24/2008, -21/+34The media is in the process of choosing our next president right before our eyes.
    • forgiste, on 03/24/2008, -15/+6I don't think they can actually do that. I think they're paid by Republicans, sure. But they can't just outright dictate an election. If they could then the media wouldn't need to try so hard to influence public opinion because it wouldn't matter. I think they're trying really hard to sway the nomination towards Hillary, and the election towards McCain, but it's just not working this time. We're adults and we can smell *****.
      • mehan, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3..that's what they want you to think
      • RRJackson, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2I've smelled ***** ever since Obama started his campaign...
      • t3rmv3locity, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1They are doing a pretty good job actually. They are only reporting stories that hurt the front runners and keeping obama and hillary neck and neck. Keep in mind that they are a Business, not a company with strictly political goals (well ok maybe fox and msnbc). They want an exciting and eventful race and if they have to wait four months till November cause obama or hillary win the nomination tomorrow, then their job will be alot harder.
    • 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -10/+27yes the ultra-liberal media chose George W Bush .. twice.. I bet your car has one of those 'honor student' stickers on it
      • Quag, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4I'm glad Fox News isn't considered media on either side.
    • stonewaljacksn, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3You must be emo. Everyone is against you and nobody listens to you and the media goes against everything you say. Dye your hair black, buy some guyliner, and sit in your self created victim's bubble and cry about it. How about that? Because everyone is against you.
      Digg is so emo for Obama
    • t3rmv3locity, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Why do people think the media is ultra liberal? Cause they report stories that make the Administration look bad? (only after NPR was focusing on them for almost a damn year). The media is a business and they act accordingly. They (with some exceptions...) do not take general political views, and create shows which reflect different viewpoints. You can always find one show which is more liberal then the rest and then complain about it (and vice versa *ahem* Bill O'Reilly *ahem*) but all in all It's still just bitching.
  • ToastedZergling, on 03/24/2008, -35/+93Guys, it's just illegal FOR NOW. Come on, he'll just get retroactive immunity, Republicans love that. Oh, they'll probably pork barrel on some pro-active immunity for crimes he'll do in the future.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/24/2008, -7/+13Nah, Bush will just pardon him...
    • RepubOperative, on 03/24/2008, -12/+14pork barrel = democrat
      • redcard, on 03/24/2008, -7/+12Really.

        Take a look at who's grown this government more in history, and it's always been Republicans. And we can't forget about the Haliburton/KBR pork barrel project that's going to cost this country over $3 trillion by the time it's done.
        • armyabn1, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5Yes...REALLY.... McCain is one of the hardest against pork barrel spending....he is nearly always at the top of the Citizens Against Government Waste list of congresspeople who fight against pork barrel spending. Republicans aren't blameless, but Democrats have won "Porker of the Month" 13 of the last 18 times, according to CAGW (cawg.com). Plus, out of the 71 Senators who voted down the DeMint - McCain Earmark Moratorium, 44 were Democrats. Pork spending isn't about growing government, it's about spending money to self-promote in your own voting district with projects that are worthless to most citizens. Both are to blame, but Democrats have led this type of BS earmark spending for years.....

          ** Both Obama and Clinton voted for it.
          • Timetheos, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Unless his lobbyists like the project.
        • subterfuge, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3you do not understand what pork barrelling is. when cheney and bush started the war and then contracted the companies they had large investments in to do the work over there, that is NOT pork barrelling. pork barrelling is when a bill is created, and the author of the bill allows politicians are allowed to add more personal spending to the bill so they will support it. haliburton/KBR is NOT pork barrelling because only 2 people are getting anything out of it. it's just corruption.
      • quandrum, on 03/24/2008, -2/+7Social spending on the poor, sick, old and uneducated (and probably a lot of people who are none of these but get in anyways) = Democrat

        Earmarking, no-bid contracts, Bank Bail-out and unnecessary but very lucrative wars = Republican

        Remember, it was the '92 Democratic majority congress that passed "Pay as you go" rules that were behind the 90's drop in government spending and the '02 Republican majority congress that let "Pay as you go" lapse that lead to the drastic increase in the '00's increase in government spending. Not that the '06 Democrats seem keen to give up the purse strings again. It's more of a politician thing than a party thing.
      • enri, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2RepubOperative = Blatantly Partisan
      • Jimmerz, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Oh right. When the Republicans do it on a scale the Dems could only dream of it's called 'fighting terrorism'.
    • BigW, on 03/24/2008, -4/+8Actually you're correct it's illegal for now. But should McCain be charged with anything on this, I hope the law is brought before the Supreme Court and thrown out like it should be.
      • n00854180t, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2I agree, Republicans shouldn't have to obey the law.
        • BigW, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1I didn't SAY that. I said I think the law is unconstitutional and that if McCain would be convicted, that the law should be overturned.
    • jroyale, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2Or more likely, McCain will just appoint yet another Attorney General that won't prosecute republican crimes.
      • subterfuge, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1you're forgetting that he won't be elected
    • jabberwolf, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Yeah you make a hell of a lot more sense.
      We shoucd get Mccain now for nothing illegal but for what he might do in the future, in case he ever touches those funds. But lets get him now for nothing illegal. Man are you from the USSR or China or something?

      AND ITS NOT ILLEGAL. NO MONEY WAS TAKEN! ugghhg (put charlie brown noise in here now)
  • Dumbledorito, on 03/24/2008, -7/+41I always figured that being a "campaign finance criminal" was another phrase for "running for/holding office."

    It worries me that this country seems to do nothing but reward the political equivalent of televangelists who'll promise good things for your community while using your cash to put a down payment on their spouse's Cadillac.
    • eean, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2You can say a lot about the problem of US politics... but politicians frequently lining their own pockets isn't one of them. Most of them would probably make more money in the private sector.
      • Dumbledorito, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3I disagree. A great many of them have quite lucrative careers out of office (or coming back in, as in the case of Cheney) as speakers, lobbyists, or members of boards for companies they assisted.

        If you think Abramoff was an isolated incident, think again.
        • SpykerSpeed, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Don't forget writing books. That's how Obama became a millionaire overnight.
    • MT85, on 03/24/2008, -1/+0Your example kinda proves Eean's point, doesn't it? Cheney would be making more money in the private sector than he is right now as VP.
      • Timetheos, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah, politicians can never think about 8 years down the road; you know, after some time in office after which they might get a lucritive lobbying gig or plum corporate board role. They never think about that.
  • Radigg, on 03/24/2008, -15/+10it will be interesting to see whether he could get arrested!
  • tonytopper, on 03/24/2008, -35/+56"McCain Is Now A Campaign Finance Criminal" Wow, that is a lot of spin.
    • nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -16/+23If you break the law, you are a criminal. Where's the spin?
      • AresDiggs, on 03/24/2008, -8/+16Innocent till proven guilty.

        ... not that i like McCain.
        • n00854180t, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2It's innocent until proven guilty if you're in with the right people. For the rest of us, it's guilty until proven innocent. I'd love to see the tables turned on this torture (he SUPPORTED Bush's veto on the bill outlawing torture, so all his rhetoric about being a victim and being opposed to it are NULL) condoning piece of scum.
          • AresDiggs, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2What? i was just merely stating that he is not a 'criminal' till he is proven guilty. Thats the heart of our legal system... and thus the original poster pointing out there is spin involved in calling him a criminal... I didnt need you to go off on your little rant about how you think you're 'guilty till proven innocent' go get arrested in Mexico or some other ***** hole country and then come back and bitch about our legal system...
          • 007brendan, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1This isn't one of those things were they found a little bit of blood and they don't know who done it, it's like, you weren't allowed to spend over 50 million and you did. It's like if you got caught driving without a license, yes, technically you're innocent until the trial, but there isn't much to prove.
      • Wonderama, on 03/24/2008, -5/+2You may be breaking any number of laws in your state if you're using this forum while at work and on company resources. Now GBTW.
      • moxanot, on 03/25/2008, -0/+3in the article it says he didn't break the law..... haha
    • 5urr3al5am, on 03/24/2008, -8/+12they never got Bill Clinton Senior with his Chinese money an they won't look into Hillary Clinton Jr with hers.. so what difference does it make?
      • eean, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Um, the Chinese money was brought up a lot in the 2000 campaign. And anyways, the race is going to be Obama vs. McCain.
    • doublebummer, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1Digg = aggregator of the ridiculous.
  • styx31989, on 03/24/2008, -12/+13I would give my right arm to see him get punished for this, but I already know that nothing is going to happen.
    • dk911, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1You cut off your right arm (no anesthetic and a hacksaw -- oh, and pics or it didn't happen) and send it to me. Then I will take him to court. Agreed?
    • d03boy, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1actually the delegates can decide that he is not a viable candidate at the convention based on something like this
  • chrissku, on 03/24/2008, -9/+4McCain should go on the Montel Williams Show and plead his case.
    • bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Montel does something besides Sylvia Browne scamming ***** now?
  • Picaroon, on 03/24/2008, -43/+32Digg has become a cesspool. Buried.
    • WraTH017, on 03/24/2008, -8/+17It sure has. Who let you in?
    • bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -2/+7But yet you keep coming back.....

      You hate it so much, but you keep coming back to stir up *****. There's a term for that.

      TROLL
  • kfed2, on 03/24/2008, -11/+36Politicians in the USA are effectively above the law. They are our legal equivalent to royalty, and can do whatever they want. It is called the "ruling class."
    Welcome to the USA.
    • centerblack, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1The Federal Election Commission (FEC) is an independent regulatory agency established in 1975 to administer and enforce the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA).

      The only reason you're hearing this story is because the FEC is doing their job. Obviously this isn't a very good example of politicians being above the law.
  • jabberwolf, on 03/24/2008, -40/+31OMFG - HE APPLIED BUT DIDNT TAKE ANY FUNDS !!
    Will you idiots knock off this dead end story?!!
    (burried - yet again- for still being inaccurate! )
    • jotate, on 03/24/2008, -8/+22He used the public financing as collateral for a loan. It's explicitly stated that you can't opt back out of the system if you do that.
      • Sogui, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4Not even that is clear, it's nuanced wording about general collateral which hints at public matching funds. McCain's campaign has disclosed more about the loan in hopes of removing that suspicion.
      • jroyale, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4Funny how Republicans can only understand "nuance" when they finally get all lawyered up. Anyway, there really isn't a lot of nuance needed here. The bank ONLY offered the loan because there was collateral. Gee, what was the collateral again? Oh right.
    • raybury, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4To be fair, he did apply for a loan with the funds as collateral, but the only reason he has not withdrawn from public financing is the failure of the FEC to have a quorum, which it would if the nominees were approved. And who is stopping that? (See below.)
      • raybury, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Correction, he did not use the funds or the certification of funds as collateral. He did use the possibility of future qualification for funds certification as potential collateral should he first drop out of public funding (as he did, all but the approval of the FEC, which is not operational due to a nominee hold by Obama) and THEN lose the next primary or caucus.

        In other words, he played campaign finance laws like a finely-tuned violin, which says more about those laws than about those who know them.
    • Aard88, on 03/24/2008, -2/+13He used the fact that he had applied, to ensure repayment of the money he borrowed. That is specifically mentioned in the FEC laws. If you use the promise of Federal matching dollars to secure a loan it's the same as if you use the matching money. You have tied yourself to the spending rules.
      • raybury, on 03/24/2008, -6/+3But even if you take money for reals, you can repay it and opt out of the system... if there is a functioning FEC! Guess who is stopping that from happening: Pinky Reid and B. Hussein Obama.
        • kreneskyp, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1It still doesn't make it legal for mccain to do it. It makes you wonder what other laws mccain will break as president
        • neverending, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1B. Hussein Obama? Stop with the name game already - it's completely irrelevant to his character. Bigot.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 03/24/2008, -4/+5OMFG - He got a loan based on his application.



      Will you idiots quit making excuses for McCain's crimes!
      • jabberwolf, on 03/25/2008, -2/+1He didnt get a loan dumass , why dont you read? Just read? A little bit?? All the way through???!?!
        FOR THE LOVE OF GOD JUST READ!!!
    • snockhockster, on 03/24/2008, -0/+8@Raybury
      Since there is no quorum, that means one can break the law without consequences?
    • jabberwolf, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1He didnt get a loan dumass , why dont you read? Just read? A little bit?? All the way through???!?!
      FOR THE LOVE OF GOD JUST READ!!!
    • Aard88, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1here Dumbass read the truth
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
  • whytheam, on 03/24/2008, -8/+141. Why do I care.
    2. If this is true why doesn't anyone else seem to notice?
    http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&tab=wn&ned=us&q= ...
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/24/2008, -7/+5Because firedoglake is the sensationalist almost-conspiracy-theory website that the Digg algorithm loves!
    • Gorshun, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3Mainly because the Clinton-Obama fight is too good to be true for the media. They care about ratings, period.

      "McCain in violation of campaign finance law? Bah! Run that video of Obama's Pastor again!"
    • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2Add firedoglake to the likes of dailykos, crooksandliars, rawstory, etc.
    • CCoe, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4I'm a conservative, and you better believe I care. Mainly because the law the prevents him from doing what he's doing is a law that he himself voted for. It's the ultimate in hypocrisy. "I'll vote for this because I don't want anyone pulling this kind of thing, except for me." I value honesty and integrity. His actions are causing me to me question him on both accounts.
      • d03boy, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3exactly. But you won't find anyone with half of a brain cell on Digg that actually knows that he is the one that proposed the McCain-Feingold law that he's breaking
      • MT85, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Amen, that's what gets me too. I wouldn't be nearly as inclined to care if it weren't for the fact that he's the one who's spent years now pumping himself up over campaign finance reform. This is supposed to be his thing.
    • observed45, on 03/25/2008, -0/+21 because if he'll break THIS law, he'll break others(anyone remeber the Keating Five and the S&L collapse they presided over? I'll let ya guess who was one of the Keating five...)

      2 Because giving the truth to the public would cause the Corporations to lose control of the public's wallets and bank accounts. So the Corporation-owned Main Stream Media outlets will never let the public NOTICE it let alone read about it.
  • bclinton, on 03/24/2008, -27/+13Calling all Obama Butt Boys to digg this up and leave negative comments to the ones on here that don't agree.
    • CCoe, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Don't agree with what? Don't agree that McCain is doing this? That's a fact, jack.
      • bclinton, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Let me remind everyone that the US will never elect a goob named Hussein Obama.

        It ain't gonna happen.
        • CCoe, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Oh, it'll happen. And when it does I'll think of you, and smile.
  • h3smith, on 03/24/2008, -8/+23Seeing as he was one of the backers of the "McCain Feingold" "reform" bill, I find it hilarious that he could be violating laws which he possibly authored.
    • AbsurdParadox, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Such is the nature of government, my friend.
  • BobSconce, on 03/24/2008, -5/+15And the FEC CAN'T CONSENT because it doesn't have a Quorum. Democrats in the Senate are holding up the nominations of four Bush appointees. Nice catch-22.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...

    • Aard88, on 03/24/2008, -4/+9No the Democrats object to one of his appointees and Bush, being an asshole, has refused to submit any of them for approval till they agree with that one.
    • snockhockster, on 03/24/2008, -4/+7Since there is no quorum, that means one can break the law without consequences?

      From a Washington Post article 'FEC Warns McCain on Campaign Spending':

      "This is serious," agreed Republican election lawyer Jan Baran. Ignoring the matter on the grounds that the FEC lacks a quorum, Baran said, "is like saying you're going to break into houses because the sheriff is out of town."
      • BobSconce, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1Pfft.... It's much closer to building an unpermitted fire inside city limits because the sheriff's been on an extended vacation for the last 6 months and there wasn't anybody around to give the permit.

        • bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Well gee, I guess that makes it acceptable then.
        • MT85, on 03/24/2008, -0/+0... which is also illegal. Argue the merit of the law all you want (I may even agree with you), but that doesn't change the fact that a presidential candidate is breaking a campaign finance law that he himself championed.
    • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -8/+1The democrats and Obama are playing games. This comes as no surprise and is more of the politics as usual that Obama has claimed he would stop.
      • MT85, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Gotta love that logic. It's the democrats' fault because they refuse to roll over for an uncrompomising asshole president. It's that kind of stupidity that led to the whole "Democrats don't want troops in Iraq to have body armor!" crap a while back, too, so I guess I'm not surprised to see it surfacing again.

        I didn't realize that the Democratic Party's role was to accomodate Bush
    • jroyale, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6Bush is absolutely refusing to compromise... so don't be blaming the Dems.
    • bxblox, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5Bush is the one holding everyone back because he cant get one of his buddies through.
      • MT85, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Dammit, accidentally buried. Apologies, my bad.
  • emeralddragon, on 03/24/2008, -11/+16David Mason is judge and jury? Wow. Usually it takes a whole criminal proceeding to assign guilt. Just because McCain applied for public financing doesn't mean he has to use it. And remember Obama mentioning he wanted to abide by spending limits? He doesn't mention that much anymore...
    • Sogui, on 03/24/2008, -1/+6David Mason didn't pass down any judgement on McCain, he asked for clarification.

      Firedoglake is the one trying to play Judge/Jury here.
  • redwoodtree, on 03/24/2008, -13/+50First of all, he's not a criminal. He may be in violation of campaign finance law.... and that shall be determined at some point, but he's innocent until proven guilty, like everyone else.

    Second, in regards to applying to but not taking funds, this is true, however, it's likely that he used the fact that he had access to these funds to receive a loan for his campaign. This in itself can be considered _use_ by many definitions.

    Finally, these issues would actually be meaningful, and might have a chance at being deliberated , IF the body governing campaign finance law was actually staffed. As it stands there are vacancies on this committee , leaving it with just two people , I believe, therefore it's not realistic to arbitrate this matter .

    In any case, I agree that Digg has become a cesspool.
    • pintomp3, on 03/24/2008, -0/+5i agree, he deserves a trial. but if he did violate the campaign finance law, that would make him a criminal. it's ironic, since he's mr. campaign finance reform.
    • uziko, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term which prevents people from being wrongly imprisoned. It has nothing to do with whether somebody is a criminal or not. If somebody commits a crime, goes through a trial, and is found innocent, that person is still a criminal. If mccain did do this then he is a criminal right now and always will be, even if he is found innocent, or if he never goes to trial.
      • redwoodtree, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Actually, you're never found innocent, you're found "not guilty" (in the U.S. anyway).

        It's a nice semantic argument you make, but I was just responding to the original headline . . . It's just pure flamebait
    • klick37, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2It used to be that when I wanted to see mindless minions rattling off fake and over-stated facts and figures about a political candidate, I'd have to turn on Fox News. Now, all I need to do is type digg.com into my address bar and I get my head filled with Obama fanboyism.
  • raybury, on 03/24/2008, -9/+10Obama is delaying a fair vote on an FEC nominee, which has left the commission unable to do its job, including approving or declining McCain's withdraw from public funding.
    • redwoodtree, on 03/24/2008, -2/+7Can you provide a source for your allegation?
      • bclinton, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1Ya.....it was me!
      • raybury, on 03/24/2008, -3/+6http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
        Other sources are blocked by my firewall or slow (get new servers, Star-Tribune!!!). Anyway, neat trick: Obama says he wants to limit spending, McCain takes the bait, now fundraising champ Obama blocks the FEC from being able to rule.
        • redwoodtree, on 03/26/2008, -0/+1Thanks, a really interesting and juicy article. Well, we know one thing, Obama knows how to politic with the big boys.

    • RepubOperative, on 03/24/2008, -6/+1I'll repost your brilliant statement above. Don't be afraid to post near the top.
    • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2But Obama is supposed to be a CHANGE!!!1 from that type of politics
  • bincoder, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8Not that anyone is running that I would vote for but I wonder what happens to all that money the earlier candidates collected. Payments on their new homes and cars? Running for president is prolly a bigger moneymaker than becoming president.
    • raybury, on 03/24/2008, -0/+4Nope, they can't use it for direct personal gain, and most of the suspended campaigns are probably broke anyway. But they can keep the "war chest" for future campaigns (be they for president or dog catcher) and have a nice benefit vis-a-vis campaign finance laws: They can dump money into other campaigns without the restrictions on individual contributors.
    • RRJackson, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Ask Nader...
  • JimSwarthow, on 03/24/2008, -13/+21gee, what would Digg users do w/out firedoglake.com to answer all their questions and help them make responsible and educated decisions?

    /buried deeeeep
    • jollyspaniard, on 03/24/2008, -2/+4You could always try framing a rebuttal, they tend to be more persuasive than stamping your feet and waving your hands.
      • JimSwarthow, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2haha! yeah right, as if I'm dumb enough to get into a boxing match w/ the tar-baby that is FDL. puhleeeaze. - quit pretending like FDL is to be considered a legitimate "source" for news b/c they're right up there w/ Ann Coulter and Michael Savitch in terms of reliability/credibility.
    • irishdeath, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Well ... without the Daily Kos and firedoglake I would have nothing to laugh and shake my head at on Digg each day. These two sites seem to have cornered the market on blogger DB's so far.
  • elamr, on 03/24/2008, -14/+39man, if he drops they'll only be ONE republican candidate left... RON PAUL!
    • Bob24, on 03/24/2008, -9/+9It won't happen...but man it would be awesome if it did.
      • irishdeath, on 03/24/2008, -3/+0You're right ... it won't.
      • PeppermintPig, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2Haven't we learned, they always elect the criminals!
    • raybury, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5If he drops other candidates will "unsuspend" their campaigns. Just as concession speeches mean nothing if the vote count changes (cf 2000 Presidential campaign), so suspending or even ending a campaign means nothing if the guy you thought beat you gets struck by lightning.
      • d03boy, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3...and they will lose the nomination anyway
        • cwabray, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1hmm, no.. .. we're talking about Republicans here
      • cashman57, on 03/25/2008, -1/+1They can't unsuspend what they ended. Nobody suspended their campaign. They asked their delegates to support McManiac and they are under no obligation to do so and I know of delegates who will vote for Paul at the convention who were pledged to the preacher man.
  • dizilbdog, on 03/24/2008, -19/+19If Mcain becomes president I would say go to EMS or REI and stock up on survival gear, because he will destroy the country...
    • Qtip42, on 03/24/2008, -3/+5I agree! digggggg up.
    • RRJackson, on 03/24/2008, -4/+3And the Drama Queen of the Day award goes to Dillrod or whatever your nick is...
  • SmEdD, on 03/24/2008, -7/+3Fail?
  • OhTheHumanity1, on 03/24/2008, -10/+5Does anyone else find the egregiously insignificant?
  • affinity, on 03/24/2008, -15/+10God I'm so sick of all this political crap. From both the left and right wings. When the hell is there going to be a MODERATE, CENTRIST party to bring this chaotic ***** under control. Screw Rush Limbaugh, O'Reily, the Daily KOS firedoglake.... screw all of them.
    • dolvlo, on 03/24/2008, -3/+1There is no such thing as a moderate, centrist party. What would their plans be? "Oh hey, lets just sit back and not touch anything in government and let the corruption swell to even more insane heights" Yeah, that sounds awesome.
    • CCoe, on 03/24/2008, -2/+5Actually, from my point of view, most of the democrats are centrist. It depends what country you're observing from.
    • d03boy, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2i dont care which party they come from: find me one that isn't evil and that people can actually vote for
  • hellsing47, on 03/24/2008, -8/+7No surprise here.

    I mean McCain as well as the comments left by Digg users.
  • dtaylor379, on 03/24/2008, -8/+0Oh, no I am scared....
  • Wonderama, on 03/24/2008, -9/+2I guess it doesn't take much to get this readership's panties in a bunch. Tempest in a teapot, people.
  • muchachoburacho, on 03/24/2008, -7/+13Look people, I'm an Obama supporter, but seriously, this is useless. I can guarantee you he won't get any public financing and that he didn't intend on raising more than the 50 million. Or he applied just as a precaution if he didnt raise that much money. I could imagine crap like this happening to Obama and you know it wouldn't make you think less of him, just as it shouldn't matter with McCain.
    • d03boy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2he didn't intend on raising that much...? why does he keep emailing us and asking for more money? i'm confused...
    • johnjen5321, on 03/24/2008, -3/+2Oh come on, McCain's got nothing to worry about. He's just like your man Obama. Both of them are controlled and funded by the Trilateral Commission and both are CFR puppets. No problem!

      The election this year is like all elections dating back to the 70's with Carter--it's to give the illusion to the American public that they actually have a choice. They don't. Both parties have been hi-jacked by the TLC and CFR. Obama represents change .... don't fool yourself. All the pandering and fake crying by Hillary, "JFK-like" speeches from Obama, drama about "Mitt Romney taking one for the team" and "suspending" ... it's all just well-orchestrated bullsh*t to give the illusion that "democracy" exists in America.
  • Sogui, on 03/24/2008, -7/+24The reason this hasn't made headlines (but it's been on the news) is that the issue IS hazy. I'm sorry that the rest of America doesn't have the clairvoyance of Firedoglake, but there are TWO sides to this story after all.

    The issue at hand is if you get accepted for matching funds, but don't use them, are you still bound by the rules? Since the FED is short several chairs for making a decision on McCain's situation, McCain's campaign has decided to leave since they never used matching funds in the first place. Ironically the complaint filer (Howard Dean) did the same thing in his 2004 campaign, was accepted for funds, but left the system to avoid fundraising limits.

    He's not a criminal and not even the DNC is accusing him of a crime, it's just a dispute about whether a November loan was using the promise of security funds as collateral.

    I'm siding with McCain on this one because they expect to bind him in a system that he didn't use, ask him for clarification on a loan, but fail to have enough chairs to provide the votes that would even allow him to exit the system. So he's in a double bind and the democrats are using this as a political tool.

    It's a really messy issue, but there's no clear cut right or wrong here... good thing we have Firedoglake's unbiased reporting to clear things up....
    • poleag, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2"He's not a criminal and not even the DNC is accusing him of a crime, it's just a dispute about whether a November loan was using the promise of security funds as collateral."

      If you use deception to quality for a loan that you would not otherwise qualify for, you are committing a form of fraud against the lender. Think about it from the lender's point of view. Awarding an unsecured loan to a borrower is almost infinitely more risky than awarding a secured loan. Therefore, if your borrower convinces you that your loan is secured when it is not, you will offer him a better deal than he deserves. Unknowingly, you will be assuming a much greater risk than you are planning for, throwing off your risk management efforts, likely causing your business to suffer/collapse as a result.

      If the money being loaned was out of YOUR pocket, and your investment was lost as a result of such fraud, I really doubt you'd be saying "it's not a crime." And in the wake of this so-called "housing crisis," we have all witnessed the disastrous effects of poorly-researched loans, not only on the borrower and/or lender, but on the rest of us as well.
      • poleag, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1However, you are absolutely right that he is not a criminal. In this country, you are innocent until proven guilty, so it is justifiably marked as innaccurate.
      • Sogui, on 03/25/2008, -0/+2If he used the FEC matching funds as collateral then it's not fraud. The FEC claims he used the PROMISE of funds as collateral if necessary, it doesn't mean he had the funds, it means he had the ability to receive the funds as collateral to cover the default risk. But there's question if that's what the McCain campaign really did, or if it's just confusing wording of the lending terms.
    • kreneskyp, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1You make the assumption that the FEC would release him if they had a quorum. It is an illegal act until otherwise approved. Mccain knows he won't get approval before the general election and he went ahead and broke the law anyway. Thats a flagrant violation in my opinion. Sure this is retarded politics but the law is the law. What else will mccain break just because he doesn't agree with it?

      The thing im curious about is who has the authority to arrest/penalizing him. Does that also require the FEC to have a quorum?
    • dzero, on 03/24/2008, -0/+1Since when is a 'hazy' issue above the 24/7 election media? If someone behind him on stage had a sour look they'd speculate about if he farted and how bad it smelled... CNN would say he had diarrhea and Fox would say 'he who smelt it, dealt it'

      this is not news at best, but your assumption that the national media wouldn't speculate and cover the ever loving ***** out of it is naive.


  • kiley481, on 03/24/2008, -10/+7Throw him in a prison and 'waterboard' him until he agrees to give the 8.4 million back :-)
  • eddielxix, on 03/24/2008, -2/+13If he wasn't the campaign finance cop, I wouldn't care, but I think he should be held to the fire for this since he has been the griping about this issue so hard and for so long.


    • bjornski, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5Reminds me of Mark Foley authoring the "protect the children" bills.
    • rficwizard, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4Yeah, HE is the one who made the mess that he is mired in. Campaign finance laws are a tool used to prevent third party candidates from having a fair shot, and to prevent incumbents from being replaced. The idea that they are used to prevent corruption is amusing. They actually protect incumbents regardless of how corrupt they are. McCain pushed his version of campaign finance "reform," and now he has stepped in the pile he created. His "violation" was an innocent mistake that is exacerbated by intentional political maneuvering. If any other candidate had this problem, they should get a pass. For McCain, it is relevant.
    • bingobongony, on 03/24/2008, -4/+2Held to the fire for what? He did not take any funds. Thus, he is not subject to the spending limit.
  • RRJackson, on 03/24/2008, -15/+9And he eats children! Better vote for Obama so we can start bombing Israel! Assalamu alaikum!
  • cxret, on 03/24/2008, -8/+8So why does McCain keep getting a pass from the media?? His minister Hagee has made far more damaging statements than Obama's minister but nothing from the media. Now this??? Here is an interesting article from Salon.com:

    http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/20/ ...
    • Pstall, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3Minister Hagee is NOT McCain's personal minister. McCain does not Attend Hagee's church, Obama attended Reverend Wright church for 20 years. McCain did not have Hagee marry him and his wife, Obama had Reverend Wright marry him and his wife. McCain did not have his children baptized by Hagee, Obama had his children baptized by Reverend Wright. Please use common sense, comparing McCain and Hagee to Obama and Wright is apples and oranges. By the way nice link to an opinion piece.
      • cxret, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2It's doesn't matter if he's not his personal minister he is still endorsing McCain and you will see that McCain McCain refused to reject Hagee's support. McCain goes to say 'He supports what I stand for and believe in' after which he says 'I am not endorsing some of their (Hagee's) positions'. REALLY??? Well what positions are you endorsing of an anti-Catholic, anti-Semitic pastor ?
    • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -3/+3Pstall said it all.

      Thanks for trying. You Fail
    • raybury, on 03/24/2008, -2/+3Hagee is NOT McCain's pastor. He sought and won the endorsement of an influential evangelical. Like many clergymen, Hagee thinks his faith is true and others false, and research found theological statements, religious teachings -- not political declarations -- that went against the religions of Judaism and Catholicism, which is not to say Jews and Catholics (e.g. everybody would be fine if they just agreed with me!). Hagees "followers" will still vote for someone not of their church (such as McCain) and their most societally-disturbing acts based on his comments will likely be that they invite their Catholic or Jewish friends to come to church with them and "learn the truth." An annoyance, not a crime.

      Research also found some nasty stuff Wright said, but it had far more behavioral and political implications -- why take responsibility if I can blame my problems on others? But while McCain was just seeking endorsements, Obama sat in his pew for 20 years listening to these "rough" comments from Wright.

      I was reluctant in both cases, first as someone who opposed McCain in the primaries, second as someone who opposes Obama in the general, in case I found myself judging someone else's legitimate religious beliefs. But there is a world of difference here, and Obama has not satisfied me with regard to the separatism Wright preached.
  • pprovo1, on 03/24/2008, -7/+2what a fag
  • slashbot, on 03/24/2008, -16/+13People are just grasping at straws here. This issue has been beaten to death and is over.

    McCain is running a respectful campaign. It seems his opposition is not.
    • mstoneburner, on 03/24/2008, -4/+4You silly person, speaking reasonably and truthfully, you're going to make the leftards cry.
    • centerblack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Feel free to post the FEC's update where they discover he didn't use the certification public funding to acquire other loans.
      • centerblack, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Oh, that's right slashbot, it doesn't exist because they're still having a lawyer fight over it. In fact, McCain is still arguing the terms of the contract.

        http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/20080226letter. ...

        I wasn't aware that "this issue has been beaten to death" was synonymous with "a possible legal issue was discovered a month ago, is still unresolved, and will likely require a bunch of rich men to argue with each other in uncomfortable clothes for several months before any decisions are made"
  • PolishLogic, on 03/24/2008, -6/+9I love how this horse ***** website acts as if this was never reported on. I bet it would come as interesting news to firedoglake.com that this was talked about over a month ago by quite a few national outlets, as he was approaching the $50M mark.
  • Qtip42, on 03/24/2008, -13/+18Voting for Mccain is like voting for another Bush.
    • CourtesyFlush, on 03/24/2008, -7/+4What a coincidence!

      Digging you down is just like digging down another moron on the intarweb.

      Burying this is just like burying every other under informed POS that bobs to the surface of digg.
    • d03boy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3oddly enough, it seems quite a few people like bush for some reason (they tend to be a little dumb)
    • RagdollOp, on 03/25/2008, -1/+2Voting for Obama is like voting for a Racist President.
  • AbsurdParadox, on 03/24/2008, -6/+3Did they ever determine if he's even eligible for the presidency (due to the birth location thing)?

    Also, what would happen to his delegates if he is forced to drop out?
    • nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -0/+7I detest McCain but the birth location argument was lame. He was born to American citizens on U.S. territory (U.S. military bases and embassies are legally considered U.S. soil)
    • raybury, on 03/24/2008, -1/+4The native-born thing is another weak attack, as will be the expected attacks on his behavior during his internment in a Hanoi torture camp. If the Dems keep attacking on such grounds, it will be worth more to McCain than all the campaign contributions he can gather.
    • bingobongony, on 03/24/2008, -0/+3And to answer your last question..his delegates would NOT go to Ron Paul. Ron Paul is not going to get the nomination.
      • AbsurdParadox, on 03/24/2008, -1/+2Hmm, let me recheck my post. Ah, nope, no mentions of Ron Paul.

        It was a legitimate question -- would they be freed up to vote for whom they want, or split up in some manner, or what? Don't be an assuming douche. Kthxbye.
        • nblsavage, on 03/24/2008, -1/+3Absurd, going by your history, thinking you were going for the Ron Paul angle wasn't unreasonable.
        • 3ugene, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1^ I am going for Ron Paul. What is it to you?
  • blah247, on 03/24/2008, -5/+2They took our jobs!!
    • MrThinkingMan, on 03/24/2008, -2/+1They took our jobs!!! (I love this quote)
    • salamanderdave, on 04/07/2008, -0/+1Thanks for the quote, but use it on a relevant article
  • MikeFallopian, on 03/24/2008, -6/+14Can anyone explain how exactly McCain is in violation of campaign finance laws? Because the firedoglake article certainly didn't explain it, and the mediamatters article on which it was based didn't even make that claim. Anyone?
    • centerblack, on 03/24/2008, -2/+8http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/pubfund.shtml
      http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/FECtoMcCain.PDF

      McCain applied for public funding, met the eligibility requirements, and was approved. If you take this money from the public, from the federal government, you agree to certain terms, such as spending limits and rules on how the money is spent. They allow any eligible candidate to withdraw from this contract, so long as they haven't taken any funds, or used the promise of those funds to qualify for other loans.

      So now they want to determine if McCain used the fact that he was certified for public funding to get other loans, and is now dropping public funding so that he doesn't have to abide by the rules of that contract.

      IMO the article and the materials linked to explain this pretty clearly.
      • centerblack, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Also, it's worth noting that the *****-ness / inaccuracy of this article is in the title. He's not a campaign finance criminal yet, he just has to prove that his other loans weren't contingent on him receiving public funds.

        Innocent until proven guilty.
        • MikeFallopian, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1Right, that was my point. No one has even accused him of using the funds as collateral and he definitely didn't withdraw federal money... so the basic claim of the article is totally innacurate.
          • centerblack, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1The claim of the article is the claim of the FEC. The FEC has told McCain that if he used his certification for public funds to get other loans, he cannot withdraw from the contract that he entered into when he applied for the public funds.

            The FEC asked McCain to come up with some documents that show his other loans weren't based on the fact that he was going to get funding from the federal government. McCain's response was *not* to produce documentation, but instead to have his lawyers argue the terms of the agreement.

            The claim that he _is_ a campaign finance criminal is inaccurate, but the accusations stand.
        • connorf, on 03/24/2008, -1/+1I don't think the democrats will be able to do much about this while they are entangled in the nomination.
    • SleighBoy, on 03/24/2008, -1/+5I think the points against him on it are that he allegedly used it as collateral on loans, and his application for it guaranteed him to be on the ballots in many states he otherwise would have had to collect signatures or some such process which would have cost him money (estimated millions) to "get the word out" or even just to pay someone to do all the work there. So he allegedly used it on loans, but saw benefit and financial savings by getting on ballots automatically.

      These are felony crimes.
      • MikeFallopian, on 03/24/2008, -1/+0It's a HUGE leap from saying that he has to reassure the FEC that he didn't use the promise of federal funding as collateral, to saying that he broke the law by withdrawing from the matching funds even though he has spent over 50k of his own funds. That's what's mildly implied in the article. But, he didn't withdraw federal money and no one has accused him of using it as collateral. So, this is some random hysteria from a site with an agenda.
      • raybury, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1Hope deep up your arse did you have to go to pull that out?
    • ZebZ, on 03/24/2008, -0/+6from the Media Matters article:
      "[...] the FEC wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan."
    • longdoggie, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2My understanding is that he agreed to accept public financing, which puts certain spending limits on the campaign. This is legally binding, not just another broken commitment. He also used the future public funding to secure a loan. Now he has spent up to the limit but still has 7 months before the election.. He can't legally change his mind about public financing at this late date and switch to private funding, so he has to break the rules or suspend his campaign. Lucky for him the finance committee doesn't have enough members to meet with quorum, so he may never have to face the music.
      • ZebZ, on 03/24/2008, -0/+2Actually, the public financing he's committed to is just for primaries. But that period, according to the FEC, lasts technically until September, I believe.
      • raybury, on 03/25/2008, -0/+1The committee -- the FEC -- being unable to meet is not to McCain's advantage. IF it COULD meet, it could accept his withdraw from public financing, and very likely would, releasing him from spending limits.
  • jerryn, on 03/24/2008, -6/+1I wonder if we are going to be stuck with Bush for another year?
  • roho76, on 03/24/2008, -2/+2Ahhh..... apathy. Ya gotta love it.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.