The scandel McCain is talking about this the scandel that he's not getting all us individuals contributing to his campaign.

Why, because he has bad ideas. I don't feel obligated to support bad ideas.

McCain loves to compare Obama's campaign to Watergate. I've yet to see anything even close to almost being a half-way decent rationale for this.

McCain: "Anything Senator Obama does in order to defeat me in this campaign is scandalous and tainted, smells Muslim, and looks like something a terrorist's pal would do. It's simply UnAmerican for Senator Obama to campaign against me, after all, I'm a former POW."

Personally, I favor public financing of elections, along with some amount of free air time for candidates with support above a given threshold. - Hilzoy

Assuming that by some amount of free air time, you mean a minimum and not a maximum or a regulated range, this would give a huge advantage to celebrity candidates like Hillary and Giuliani and to media favorites like McCain and Bush. A candidate would never win based on good ideas and the power of persuasion alone, even if he had a resume like Bill Richardson (who lacked power to persuade).

He really has no interest in going out with a shred of dignity.

But if McCain can't employ smears or innuendo, what's he left with?

If giving an amount less than the mandated minimum for reporting is, as John McCain suggests, a "scandal," and there are approximately a million people who have done this, then John McCain must really be worried about the tramp-tramp-tramping sound made by the two million "scandalous feet" that belong to those one million "scandalous donors."

Especially now that he's hearing them in his tramp-tramp-tramping dreams, and at the tramp-tramp-tramping breakfast table (all nine of them), and on the tramp-tramp-tramping campaign trail, every time he stands in front of a tramp-tramp-tramping microphone and lies through his tramp-tramp-tramping teeth.

Be afraid, John McCain. Be very afraid---because that tramp-tramp-tramping sound you hear isn't going to stop, or relent, or even ease up a bit these next 16 days. It's going to get bigger; it's going to get louder; it's going to drive you and your ilk back into the slimy, primordial pits of stench from whence you crawled.

Tramp.

Tramp.

TRAMP....

If he wins, Obama will be very well-positioned to do do serious campaign AND election reform-- he can say I raised the most anyone has ever raised and this HAS to stop.

We NEED public financing of campaigns as well as restrictions on the length of campaigning. Obama has raised the bar on campaigning and fund-raising he needs to lower it again to normal, pre-Obama levels.

You can stop with the first point. McCain has become an habitual liar, not through direct statements of false claims, but through carefully selected statements that give an incomplete picture of the situation and so deliberately create a false conclusion in the listener's mind.

He probably thought he was clever getting around the honor code at Annapolis as well. More an more clearly W's heir.

I'm sure we can all expect John McCain to any time now to renounce all support from the RNC, who, per his own campaign finance law, can raise virtually unlimited funds. Aren't they just asking to be embroiled in a scandal?

Your points are well-taken, as always -- but you give McCain far too much credit by taking his words as a brief for some rational argument. These days, McCain's thoughts don't reach beyond the immediate gratification of maligning Obama and hoping the MSM picks up on it.

As for the argument at hand: I'm an old-fashioned liberal who's gone from preferring British-style publicly funded campaigns to campaigns with unlimited contributions, but with strict and open public accounting and severe penalties for misrepresentation.

-- and there's already been stories of people who have made small contributions multiple times and all that.

Heaven forbid that average people should legally make small contributions multiple times. If this goes on we may actually face the threat of having politicians beholden to small donors rather than special interests. It's Armageddon I tells ya'.

I'm sure that, over the past5-6 months, my "dribbles" ($25 at a time. Sometimes 15, if I couldn't scramble up 25) must have added to a close to $300. Which makes Obama definitely obligated to me, to do what I want. I want universal, single payer, not for profit healthcare, *pronto*. Like, Jauary 21st. And I'm sure I'll get it, because of my ever so generous contributions.

I can see how that version of public financing (which is how I think of it) would rub McCain raw and strike him as being scandalous. We can't have the hoi-polloi voting with their pocketbooks, same as the mega corporations do...

A candidate would never win based on good ideas and the power of persuasion alone, even if he had a resume like Bill Richardson (who lacked power to persuade).

I get the larger point you were making -- that celebrity can trump all in this crazy culture -- but consider: Hilary and McCain and Bush already get free air time, and not just a modicum of it, either. Is it so wrong that other candidates, who might be able to "pull" voters out but who don't wow the punditocracy, should also get exposure?

What I assume he's saying is that I could be breaking the law by giving $50 to Obama 100 different times and thus going over the limit because the campaign isn't required to keep track of small donors. However, he's full of shit even with this complaint because you know the Obama keeps track of every detail of even the smallest donation and the example above either isn't allowed to happen or could be easily prevented with a small change to the record-keeping.

If he wants to make all contributions reportable, then fine, do that, the records are kept anyway. But, like everyone else, I have a feeling these "reforms" that McCain proposes will impose burdens on ordinary people ever giving to Democrats in this volume again. Not that a Dem-controlled Congress should pass them, but we've seen them vote against their own interests plenty of times before for no discernible reason.

I can see McCain's point of view here: if you let a bunch of average citizens buy a presidential candidate with a whole lot of $90 contributions, before you know it you'll have a candidate pushing a socialist agenda of middle-class tax cuts. Then where are all the rich people going to be, eh? You think sixth and seventh houses build themselves or grow on trees or something? Class warfare is clearly anything that the Republicans aren't on the receiving end of. (/snark)

The irony of it is that America owes its widespread wealth to its huge and previously comfortable middle class much more than the other way around, so improving the condition of the middle and lower classes is probably the easiest way to ensure a healthy economy with many successful small to medium businesses.

Or that pubic financing be mandatory

Kurt Vonnegut had a side-story about a safecracker who filed his fingertips so they'd be extra sensitive, and whose son did the same, but to better please women with his touch, and went on to attain public office thanks to the votes of the enormous number of women he'd serviced. Financing was not discussed.

hmmm, I'm quite sure I don't want my public dollars funding the kind of smear-filled, racist-baiting campaign McCain is running.

In fact, one reason I'm giving a lot to the Obama campaign is because I know his campaign needs outspend McCain's campaign in order to fight the nasty smears.

You are, as usual, full of crap.
Corporate money is favoring Obama big time and big bundlers are his majority donor base all of whom are going to gain access for their 'donations.'
As usual, big money is foul, unless it goes to The Precious

I suppose it's easier for him to assume there is something sinister and untoward going on than to accept that this is a mandate from the populace for Obama/against the Republican party. The fact that so many people were willing to open up their pocketbooks to defeat McCain and the policies of the Bush years should be sending him -- and all of them -- a very clear message. I hope someone out there is listening.

A republican relative told me that the amount of money Obama has raised is "obscene". And I love the obsession they have with public financing. Since the Republican platform is small government, shouldn't they be happy Obama chose not to use that government money?

It sounds like John doesn't like all of this record-breaking donation collecting because, this time, it's not the Republicans getting the money.

'Fair play' is a bitch.'

McCain is still pissed off that Obama didn't fall into the public financing trap that Kerry did.

In 2004 Kerry was really screwed. His nomination was in early August, Bush's in early September. The law said that both candidates were restricted to $75M after the nomination, but that meant Kerry had to stretch the funds over 3 months instead of 2. And the RNC and 527s of course were overflowing with cash from rich Repugnicans. It was not coincidence that the Swift Boat attack was launched immeidately after the DNC.

And of course the Republicans have other advantages. They have their own 24x7 news channel (Fox) and they get unusally disproportionate time on the other channels -- I mean, a small Swift Boat investment generated 1000s of hours of free TV and radio time in August, 2004.

McCain planned to do the same, but Obama was too smart. First, the RNC was moved to early September, but the DNC was planned for just before that. Unusual to be so close together, but necessary to limit the campaign financing advantage.

Then McCain tried to hold Obama to his "promise" on campaign financing, but of course said he could do nothing about 527s and wouldn't agree to any limits on RNC funds.

Let's be honest. The Republicans won't agree to any campaign funding limitations that will actually prevent them from getting gobs of money from the wealthy. Obama has found a way around that this cycle. And it pisses them off.

Working class people like what Obama has to say, and they are contributing to his campaign in record numbers. I can see why John McCain is upset by that, but it's not a scandal, it's Democracy.

Didn't Tommy "The Hammer" DeLay go down for some illegalities having to do with campaign financing? Didn't the Republicans threaten to rewrite the law so that he could stay on as majority leader, even though he was under investigation? Another example of short memories in the attention-deficit democracy.

What Obama has accomplished is campaign financing by means of donations from the public---thus "REAL Public Campaign Financing."

What McCain wants, as "public campaign financing," is actually "Universal, Single-Payer, Government-Funded Campaign Care."

Sounds like John McCain has gone all Socialist on us. Does FOX News know about this yet?

Wait, didn't Obama save the taxpayers $84 million by not accepting public financing for the general election? What has McCain done during the campaign that has been as helpful to the US Treasury as that? Who's more respectful of the taxpayer's money?

Um, if he lacked the power to persuade, then he was correctly marginalized. -Bernard HP Gilroy

I didn't intend to imply that Richardson was a good candidate - only that he had a good resume. In fact, i was suggesting that he wasn't a good candidate, specifically because he wasn't very persuasive.

Well if I can employ McNasty's rational aka the town halls and the and his negative campaign. If only , if only, John McCain had run a clean campaign I wouldn't have been forced to contribute. Every time he came up with a negative add or action (Picking a zealot for a VP) I was forced to contribute another $25 . My total is somewhere around the $800 mark , so I put it to you Mr McCain, are you going to force me to donate more money or are you going to run a respectable campaign?

Is it so wrong that other candidates, who might be able to "pull" voters out but who don't wow the punditocracy, should also get exposure? - -Bernard HP Gilroy

No. In fact I rather liked the 20 debate format, with some dropping out as it became obvious that they didn't have the appeal. I also wouldn't mind a minimum for candidates who reach some minimal threshhold. I just don't like the idea of limited donation totals, or for that matter, shortened campaigns.

"hmmm, I'm quite sure I don't want my public dollars funding the kind of smear-filled, racist-baiting campaign McCain is running.

In fact, one reason I'm giving a lot to the Obama campaign is because I know his campaign needs outspend McCain's campaign in order to fight the nasty smears." - JWK

Amen to that JWK. That's why I donate too.
Anonny @ 4:55 makes many good points as well.

Is George Will, who believes that "free speech" includes being able to give unlimited money to candidates and who despises the McCain-Feingold act, going to leap to Obama's defense?
Just wondering ...

As for Paul

I think your either full of shit or missing the point. Of the stories you linked (by the way quite old) the first in no way accounts for the massive contribution difference and the second considers contributors of $200 or more to be "big" spenders. Many people have been donating small amounts over time and could easily go over that.

Obama has simply done what nobody before him has. Use the Internet and small donors to great effect.

McCain can cry foul all he wants if he actually has specific evidence of a "scandal", but until then he needs to shut his pie hole.

I for one am hoping Obama will feel beholdin' to the folks who gave him all that money, and do their bidding.

Shorter John McPOW: "Waaaaah! It's not faaaaair!!"

Nice of him to bring up Watergate lest we forget Republicans are crooks.

Shalimar: What I assume he's saying is that I could be breaking the law by giving $50 to Obama 100 different times and thus going over the limit because the campaign isn't required to keep track of small donors.

No, every campaign is absolutely required to keep track of small donors. What it isn't required to do is to report donor information (name, address, employer, etc.) to the FEC until a donor goes above $200. Make 19 $10 donations to Obama or any other candidate and you won't see your name in publicly available donor info. Make 21 of 'em and suddenly every single $10 donation will be viewable under your name (with dates of donations noted) in FEC filings. (I went for 19 and 21 because I can't remember if they report when you hit $200.00 or $200.01.)

All McCain is doing here--the only purpose of any of this--is to feed the vague sense of Obama's illegitimacy he and the RNC are cultivating. It doesn't matter if McCain's sentences don't make any sense as long as the words create a negative impression in the minds of his less than bright followers.

To clarify: A campaign is not required to report a donor's name, address, etc. to the FEC until that donor accrues $200-plus in donations to that candidate.

If you have the time, google search "What John Dramesi says about McCain today,"
Dramesi was in Vietnam as a POW when McCain was there.
It will be an eye-opener.

I met Dramesi last year. What an interesting man--and seemingly much younger looking and healthier than McCain

Honest question here, from someone who has given $500 to Obama.

I worked on a state campaign in 2002. The reporting requirement of smaller donors (less than $250, I think) was very lax. We suspected that one of our opponents may have been receiving contributions from persons who wanted to fly under the radar by giving under $250 many times.

Is it the same way under Federal campaign laws? And is this what McCain is complaining about? That the lax reporting requirements for small donors potentially allow for illegal donations from phony donors?

Free speech does not include the right to bribe public officials, and that's what we have right now. Any time someone gives money to a candidate expecting that the candidate will treat him differently- whether it's giving him access, taking his phone calls, or worse- stopping legislation, or enacting legislation-- that's the dictionary (and U.S. Code) definition of bribery. The only way to repair the system is by barring all donations to candidates, and all solicitations from candidates.

McCain's statement is completely un-American. He wants to stop the little people from having a say in national politics. I look forward to Obama hammering him over this. McCain is a whiny elitist.

So, for Senator McCain and Governor Palin:

-- A successful fundraising strategy is "corruption."

-- A long list of qualifications for high office is "a big, fat resume."

-- Working your way up to be the first black president of the Harvard Law Review is "elitism."

-- Rhetorical eloquence is " just a lot of words."

-- Public service on a community board is "palling around with terrorists."

-- Being a Christian with a foreign-sounding name is "dangerous."

-- Being critical of any US policy is "unpatriotic."

-- Living in a Democratic district is "not the true America."

It would appear that for the GOP ignorance (or membership in the GOP) is the main qualification for high office. The GOP is as bankrupt of ideas as their unregulated credit markets were of cash until George Bush bailed out AIG and nationalized the banks two weeks ago. They are backed into a corner. All they have left is nativism, fear and Sarah Palin's looks.

I read that for a rally in Lancaster PA yesterday Governor Palin donned a mini skirt and black go-go boots. What would people say if Michele Obama dressed like that?

Black boots. . . hmm . . . maybe they go over well with the Amish.

Nobody is talking about THIS scandal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking

Those same banks that we just bailed out with taxpayers $$$ are giving themselves HUGE bonuses - to the likes of $70 BILLION!!!

Nobody is talking about THIS scandal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2008/oct/17/executivesalaries-banking

Those same banks that we just bailed out with taxpayers $$$ are giving themselves HUGE bonuses - to the likes of $70 BILLION!!!

I read that for a rally in Lancaster PA yesterday Governor Palin donned a mini skirt and black go-go boots. What would people say if Michele Obama dressed like that?

"Hey. Ain't that Conduhleeeeza Rice ovar thar?"

And Goose, I give your spoof a 8.9. The subtle twisting of the definition of a bribe would have gotten you a 10 but you didn't put enough effort into your handle.

Shorter McCain:

"Waaaahhhhh!! He's outspending me! Democrats aren't allowed to do that to Republicans! Waahhh!!"

I just thought this deserved reposting:

Capt Kirk at 3:36 PM: "McCain: 'Anything Senator Obama does in order to defeat me in this campaign is scandalous and tainted, smells Muslim, and looks like something a terrorist's pal would do. It's simply UnAmerican for Senator Obama to campaign against me, after all, I'm a former POW.' "

That's pretty much it, isn't it? Or, with a little more scope and historicity, ANY girly commie terrorist Democrat having the unmitigated gall, the nerve to consider the holiest-of-holies, sanctum Republicum White House as rightfully his (or hers) just do not know his place, do he? In particular a 'wet behind the ears,' 'inexperienced,' ahhhm, how shall we say, "boy" like Obama?

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind, besides the inevitable troglodyte authoritarian margins, who McCain really is? And what he is? This is, in all its wonder and glory, the soul (or what passes for soul in a decayed cesspool of weakness, self loathing, and abject terror) of modern conservatism.

It's a "scandal" because a Democrat is kicking his ass.

(Or, more precisely, limited by the number of US citizens multiplied by the amount each of them can legally donate.)

U.S. Permanent residents, while not permitted to vote, are allowed to donate to campaigns.

I think a limit should be set. Not to the number of people but to what they can give.

I'd set it at $200. They can't give more than that. No one can. And I'd do away with bundling and PACs and corporate support of conventions. No support, from any direction, in any way, shape or form, or for any reason, beyond $200 per person. And, to make it tougher for incumbents, if you try to campaign using your office, using taxpayer dollars in any way to get reelected, you forfeit your shot at reelection and you leave town at the end of your term.

Money has to be taken out of the system. And we have to start by getting progressive Supremes to stop seeing money as "speech".

Main Entry:
1bribe Listen to the pronunciation of 1bribe
Pronunciation:
\ˈbrīb\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English, morsel given to a beggar, bribe, from Anglo-French, morsel
Date:
15th century

1 : money or favor given or promised in order to influence the judgment or conduct of a person in a position of trust 2 : something that serves to induce or influence

18 U.S.C. § 201. Bribery of Public Officials
(b) Whoever —

(1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything
of value to any public official or person who has been selected to be a
public official, or offers or promises any public official or any person
who has been selected to be a public official to give anything of value to
any other person or entity, with intent —

(A) to influence any official act; or ....

(C) to induce such public official or such person who has been selected
to be a public official to do or omit to do any act in violation of the
lawful duty of such official or person;

Please John, just stop acting like such a dick! Save what miniscule particle of honor you have left and suicide bomb yourself and your running mate at the next speaking engagemnet! Hurry, it's not too late!

Oh that's right, you suicide bombed your entire campaign when you picked Palin as your running mate! I forgot..

Pubic Financing?

Careful. That way lies another Bill Clinton.

I think it means that McCain is... what was that again?
Oh, yeah: fucked!

Whatever happened to this story?

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/26/dems.mccain.financing/index.html

"McCain on February 6 filed a request to withdraw from the public campaign financing program, which is funded by taxpayers checking a box on their federal income tax returns.
"Monday, McCain told reporters he is confident the move to withdraw will be validated."

I don't think McCain is stupid but he may be blind. His comments seem like the rationalizations of a loser grasping for any explanation of why he is losing the race that he feels entitled to win.

But there is also a darker side in this talk of 'scandals' and in the ridiculous attacks on Acorn 'destroying the fabric of our democracy'. McCain is cultivating a pool of irrational resentment that can indeed undermine the fabric of our democracy. What if McCain and some republicans refuse to accept the results of the election, citing ill-defined scandals and 'corruption'?