warinner ([info]warinner) wrote,
@ 2008-02-22 13:09:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
McCain got no pull?
The FEC dealt McCain another blow yesterday when warned him that he would not be allowed to automatically withdraw from federal funding of his primary campaign. There is a overall $54 million spending cap on campaigns receiving federal matching funds. McCain has spent $49 million so far. He'll have make $5 million last between here and the convention.

The FEC Chairman David M. Mason informed McCain that the commission could not let him out of his federal matching application because the FEC board lacked a quorum and because there were questions about $1 million loan that McCain received.

It seems like the kind of problem that could easily be solved by McCain making a phone call or two, the first to Bush to rein in the FCC and maybe a couple of others to plead party unity and raise specter of Dole's funding problems in 1992.

It is difficult to make out what kind of conservative David M. Mason is from his CV. He worked for John Warner (for moderate Republican cred) but then he worked for Trent Lott. He's from Virginia which could mean anything. And then there is line:

He is active in political and community affairs in northern Virginia and in the home education movement nationally. He and his wife reside in Lovettsville, Virginia with their ten children.


Northern Virginia, active in the home education movement and 10 children = right wing home schooling Christian loon

That explains it.



(Post a new comment)

A big presumptuous, I think...
(Anonymous)
2008-02-22 03:17 pm UTC (link)
At first blush, your inference seems reasonable, but Dave Mason is actually one of the most thoughtful, deliberate, and essentially generous people I know (and I do know him personally, though just as an acquaintance, since our children are members of the same local swim team -- which Dave Mason helps coach, by the way). What he is, most importantly, is law-abiding.

The FEC is a watchdog agency; it's only right that it should wield whatever power it still has after being systematically withered by the current administration, which has allowed its members to bleed away without attempting to replace them.

Actually, I'm not sure I understand where you're coming from. On the one hand, you seem to be angry that John McCain is running out of money and trapped by the public campaign finance laws and the FEC's rules implementing those laws (which Mr. McCain had a good part in actually creating, and hooray for that), which suggests you support Mr. McCain's bid... but on the other hand, you seem to be ready to disparage Mr. Mason for his conservative appearance (ten kids, homeschool activist, etc), which suggests you feel he wouldn't support Mr. McCain.

What, no big tent for you, warriner? By the way, are you an inside-the-beltway person, or out? You seem kinda out.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: A big presumptuous, I think...
[info]warinner
2008-02-22 04:40 pm UTC (link)
First, a ground rule: I am philosophically opposed to anonymous comments. If you wish to continue the discussion, please identify yourself in some way.

Second, I am not a lawyer. I made no comment on the merits of Mr. Mason's interpretation of the laws. I note that lawyers representing McCain have a different interpretation, but that is their job.

So, an interpretation of election law is in dispute. It is odd that a Republican administration cannot grease the skids for its presumptive nominee and this entry is a bit of idle, possibly uninformed, speculation about why that is.

The FEC dropping this bombshell on McCain at this time suggests a certain disarray in the Republican Party that was once so adept at orchestrating electoral strategy with its governance.

I bow to your judgement of Mr. Mason's character. However, we are talking about an adminstration not known to put a premium on the rule of law, so I wonder why someone above Mr. Mason's pay grade was unable or unwilling to find a solution that would not hobble McCain's campaign. Infractions of election law are often settled after the election, surely this one could have.

As for me, you won't find me in any Republican tent, big or small. And there is a literal ocean between the Beltway and me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: A big presumptuous, I think...
[info]pasketti
2008-02-22 07:38 pm UTC (link)
I am philosophically opposed to anonymous comments.

Me too, which is why I disabled them in my LJ. It's in the manage comments section, I think.

And no, I wasn't the anonymous commenter.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Sorry about the flame earlier...
[info]haigek
2008-02-26 03:02 pm UTC (link)
First, thank you for publishing my post. I applaud your decision to leave anonymous commenting open on your site, balanced by screening and your immediate and plainspoken argument against anonymity.

Second, I apologize for the tone of my post. After making it, I went on to browse your blog and came to the conclusion I had overreacted and behaved rudely myself.

I would still opine that the role of the FEC is that of arbiter of U.S. election law, and that as an independent commission it is designed to be (as much as possible) outside the influence of the other branches of government -- particularly the executive branch. I would be appalled (though not at all surprised, seeing as I grew up well inside the beltway) to learn that the FEC were being strong-armed by the sitting party, and it will be a sad day when that happens blatantly.

I completely understand your surprise that the Republican party and this administration, which you correctly point out are phenomenally good at orchestrating unity, find themselves apparently unable to simply make this problem for Senator McCain "go away" (even just temporarily).

In fact, though, because the FEC is currently without a quorum, effectively the truth is that this is an election issue that will be sorted out later. The FEC is currently able to do nothing more than offer commentary. Its two remaining members can speak in (presumably well-informed) hypotheticals about how the FEC might settle a particular question, but without a quorum there is no official action the FEC can take on anything substantive. (If I read your comment "this entry is a bit of idle, possibly uninformed, speculation about why that is" correctly, and "this entry" refers to your own, then I think we might be in agreement about the heart of this matter: that it's simply shocking to see the Republican machine in such apparent disarray, as you put it.)

Sorry about the tent jibe, too -- that was just a feeble attempt at levity.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…