Political Wrinkles - View Single Post - Dean says McCain skirts election law with campaign loan

cnredd · #3 (**permalink**) 02-25-2008, 03:11 PM

Here's a report on the whole FEC issue from A to Z...slightly dizzying...

What a Tangled Web We Weave: Everything You Need to Know About John McCain and Matching Funds

Quote:

The wonderful irony of government involvement in funding political campaigns – that is, giving your tax dollars to candidates and parties to use for convention balloon drops, negative TV ads, and campaign robocalls – is that it actually increases the perception of corruption in politics and distracts from discussion of political issues. Rarely has this phenomenon been so clearly illustrated as in the current flap over whether or not Senator McCain is committed to using tax dollars – with accompanying spending limitations – prior to his formal nomination at the GOP Convention in September.

Can the Federal Election Commission force Senator McCain to take tax funds and limit his spending? If so, what does it mean for his campaign? Has his campaign broken the law? Why can’t the FEC rule on Senator McCain’s predicament? And is Senator Obama behaving ethically? If you’ve followed a few of the stories, they all seem quite confusing. But we’re going to sort things out for you. So here you have it: all you need to know about Senator McCain and federal matching funds – and then some.

It's a pretty comprehensive report...I'll add the conclusions if you'd like to bypass the specifics...

Quote:

So, what are some lessons to be learned from this little soap opera. Here are two we suggest:

1. The law is way too complex. Political activity should not be hampered by such a suppressive waive of regulation. In the past, McCain’s lawyer, Trevor Potter, has pooh-poohed such concerns, claiming that even small time, grassroots candidates had no cause to complain about the law’s complexity. But if a lawyer of his ability representing the almost certain presidential nominee of a major party can end up in such arcane disputes, what do these laws do to average citizens seeking to participate?

In this regard, it may also be worth noting that over the years both Mr. Potter and Senator McCain have abused Chairman Mason with insults, name-calling, and unfair criticism, mainly on the theory that by not doing Senator McCain’s and the “reform community’s” bidding, he was refusing to, “enforce the law.” Senator McCain, for his part, has shown a stubborn unwillingness to learn what his laws really mean, or to even inquire into the relief that is requested in the many lawsuits he has allowed to be filed in his name. Perhaps the current flap will cause the Senator to moderate his future approach, and give “reformers” such as Potter some second thoughts about complexity.

2. Tax financing of campaigns is a waste of money.

Tax financing is supposed to prevent corruption. But nobody seriously thinks that Senator McCain or Senator Obama is devising his policies to placate donors, and there are no voters who are evaluating the candidates’ integrity based on whether or not they take tax subsidies for their campaigns. “No matter,” say some reformers, “the appearance of corruption” is enough. But here, regardless of whether or not the McCain campaign is operating within the law, nobody is harmed. It is an offense not against the people, but against at most the regulatory apparatus of the state. This should no more create “an appearance of corruption” around Senator McCain than would the knowledge that he once drove at 73 miles per hour in a 65 mph zone. Since Senator McCain has played a major role in maintaining and expanding that regulatory apparatus, and shown little concern for other citizens prosecuted under these laws, it is hard to be sympathetic to his plight, but one thing this case is not about is “corruption.”

Similarly, Senator Obama’s actions in blocking von Spakovsky suddenly fall under an ethical cloud – he can be accused of using his Senate position to lock up the FEC to the detriment of his likely general election opponent. In short, the system, far from removing the “appearance of corruption,” is creating an appearance of corruption where it should not exist. In addition to the anti-corruption rationale, tax subsidies are supposed to free up the candidates from fund-raising and allow the campaign to focus on issues. Instead, for the last week the various campaign flaps have dominated campaign coverage, distracting from the discussion of issues. Finally, tax financing is supposed to promote equality, but as we see, the rules and regulations will affect different candidates differently, often increasing inequality between them, and providing a tool for candidates to attack one another.

It is hard to imagine a more wasteful government program than taxing citizens to pay for political campaigns. The system is an earmark for "good government" types that ought to go. If these two lessons can be learned, something good will have come out of this flap du jour.