My campaign finance reform plan:

1. Half of all campaign contributions for each candidate for a particular office are placed in a pool.
2. The pool is evenly split among all the candidates for that office at the time of donation.
3. All contributions to an account and purchases from an account are reported in real time.

No public financing or spending limits necessary.

I'm sure people will be asking him how he feels about it now, but in his defense, I bet he doesn't even remember sponsoring the damn thing by now.

/Quit throwing McCain-Feingold in my face...
/It's just a goddamn piece of paper!

American politicians would be so dead in Canada.

/spending limits for the win
//different system though

My plan:

1. Once a set number of signatures have been collected, a fixed amount of public funds are disbursed.
2. Only registered voters may donate above public funds.

If he didn't want to have to worry about the spending limits, he shouldn't have joined. When times were tough, he looked for the bail out, but now that they've gotten better, he doesn't want to deal with the bargain he made.

Tough.

Hoist by his own petard...

what the hell's a petard anyway?

Majick Thise: Hoist by his own petard...

what the hell's a petard anyway?

Call it a grenade, close enough. And a fart. Read that as you will.

It's a trap!

Snarfangel: My campaign finance reform plan:

1. Half of all campaign contributions for each candidate for a particular office are placed in a pool.
2. The pool is evenly split among all the candidates for that office at the time of donation.
3. All contributions to an account and purchases from an account are reported in real time.

No public financing or spending limits necessary.

My plan - Recruit 10 of my friends to run for office as "independents" who remarkably and coincidently spend their time attacking my opponent with his own funds.

In his defense, it's also restricted by the fact that his own party hates him.

And this is where Bush will have to capitulate on FEC nominees in order for McCain to get his money (or for him to pull out of the matching funds)

I am just confused. McCain doesn't want the public financing that he pushed for... then why have public financing?

Politically Purple (new window)
/a pet project of mine

Here's a summary:

McCain signed documents joining the public finance system back when he was running out of money. He planned to keep open the option of withdrawing by not spending any of the public money until he absolutely had to. Now that he's more or less the nominee, he wants to withdraw.

This is complicated by two facts:

1. You can't unilaterally withdraw from the system. You sign a contract when you join and the FEC has to let you off the hook after making sure you didn't use the money. Normally, this would be a quick administrative item, but the FEC only has two of six members currently with replacements tied up in the Senate. So it's incapable of doing *anything*. So McCain is still locked into the system and rapidly approaching the spending cap.

2. He used the public financing moneys as collateral for a loan. He did it creatively enough to give himself some wiggling room but the (Republican-appointed) head of the FEC isn't looking kindly on it so far. So he may not be able to withdraw even if the FEC was functioning.

Aexia: Here's a summary:

McCain signed documents joining the public finance system back when he was running out of money. He planned to keep open the option of withdrawing by not spending any of the public money until he absolutely had to. Now that he's more or less the nominee, he wants to withdraw.

This is complicated by two facts:

1. You can't unilaterally withdraw from the system. You sign a contract when you join and the FEC has to let you off the hook after making sure you didn't use the money. Normally, this would be a quick administrative item, but the FEC only has two of six members currently with replacements tied up in the Senate. So it's incapable of doing *anything*. So McCain is still locked into the system and rapidly approaching the spending cap.

2. He used the public financing moneys as collateral for a loan. He did it creatively enough to give himself some wiggling room but the (Republican-appointed) head of the FEC isn't looking kindly on it so far. So he may not be able to withdraw even if the FEC was functioning.

in other words the bastard is farked

/serves him right

Was public financing of campaigns covered in McCain-Feingold? I don't think this has to do with that law, I think it has to do with McCain trying to game the system back when he was not doing well in the polls.

(Okay, I guess that everyone has their spending restricted by McCain-Feingold, but that's not the issue here.)

oops.

Aexia: My plan - Recruit 10 of my friends to run for office as "independents" who remarkably and coincidently spend their time attacking my opponent with his own funds.

And? You'd still have to get on the ballot to qualify, plus you'd be taking money away from the candidate you prefer. Your ten friends would also have to be well-enough off to take a few months away from their job -- assuming they have one -- and well-spoken enough to sway people's opinion without alienating them against you.

Besides, let's do a little math. Candidate A raises $120 million. Let's assume you are his only opponent, and that you are a failure at fundraising. If you didn't have any campaign donations -- which generally means you don't excite the electorate anyway -- you would get $30 million for your campaign (1/2 of $60 million), vs. $90 million for your opponent. If you have ten deadbeat friends enter the race, and they don't raise anything either, then everyone gets $5 million apience from the pool (1/12 of $60 million), or a $65 million vs. $5 million split. While this is an interesting way to dilute your message, I don't think it would be a winning strategy -- especially with how difficult it would be to keep your relationship off the front pages of every newspaper in the country.

Not ironic.

Of course we'd expect a campaign finance law to apply to presidential candidates.

My prediction - he'll spend whatever he wants, within McCain-Feingold but disregarding the public financing restrictions. By the time everything is sorted out, the election will be over, and he'll pay whatever penalty they give (and hey, if he's president, it was worth it).

Of course, there will be plenty of 527s that aren't officially associated with McCain and don't specifically endorse him (wink, wink). Hillary's already doing it to Obama.

hasn't McCain given up yet?

Snarfangel: No public financing

Why not? if you have any brains at all, that would be at the top of your list

_/lobbiests?

Number41: My prediction - he'll spend whatever he wants, within McCain-Feingold but disregarding the public financing restrictions. By the time everything is sorted out, the election will be over, and he'll pay whatever penalty they give (and hey, if he's president, it was worth it).

Of course, there will be plenty of 527s that aren't officially associated with McCain and don't specifically endorse him (wink, wink). Hillary's already doing it to Obama.

The penalty's 5 years in jail.

d'art: Number41: My prediction - he'll spend whatever he wants, within McCain-Feingold but disregarding the public financing restrictions. By the time everything is sorted out, the election will be over, and he'll pay whatever penalty they give (and hey, if he's president, it was worth it).

Of course, there will be plenty of 527s that aren't officially associated with McCain and don't specifically endorse him (wink, wink). Hillary's already doing it to Obama.

The penalty's 5 years in jail.

except for some reason, the DoJ will never get around to it.

/we've seen this type of thing before...

McCain-Feingold has nothing to do with the public financing issues discussed in this article.

d'art: The penalty's 5 years in jail.

Maximum penalty. It wouldn't happen.

Snarfangel: My campaign finance reform plan:

1. Half of all campaign contributions for each candidate for a particular office are placed in a pool.
2. The pool is evenly split among all the candidates for that office at the time of donation.
3. All contributions to an account and purchases from an account are reported in real time.

No public financing or spending limits necessary.

Then see contributions plummet, because the "I contributed to John McCain, not B. Hussein Osbama!" whiners will come out.

bolzy: Snarfangel: No public financing

Why not? if you have any brains at all, that would be at the top of your list

Because it is not needed. Why spend taxpayer dollars unnecessarily?

IlGreven: Then see contributions plummet, because the "I contributed to John McCain, not B. Hussein Osbama!" whiners will come out.

Less political advertising sounds fine to me, though I'm not sure that overall contributions would drop if you removed the cap on contributions. You might have fewer but larger (on average) contributions -- though that's fine, since a portion would be split up among all the candidates.

/Seeing part of a GM contribution go to Ralph Nader appeals to my sense of humor.

Snarfangel: Besides, let's do a little math. Candidate A raises $120 million. Let's assume you are his only opponent, and that you are a failure at fundraising. If you didn't have any campaign donations -- which generally means you don't excite the electorate anyway -- you would get $30 million for your campaign (1/2 of $60 million), vs. $90 million for your opponent. If you have ten deadbeat friends enter the race, and they don't raise anything either, then everyone gets $5 million apience from the pool (1/12 of $60 million), or a $65 million vs. $5 million split. While this is an interesting way to dilute your message, I don't think it would be a winning strategy -- especially with how difficult it would be to keep your relationship off the front pages of every newspaper in the country.

Actually the bigger problem -

Competitive race between two serious candidates with several million in the pot. Unserious candidate and a few of friends get him on the ballot and then pay themselves several hundred thousands dollars each for "consulting" fees.

If someone had asked me to define "irony", this would be one of the examples I'd use. Bonus appropriateness if McCain had once joked about never needing the potential money since he'd never run for the presidency anyway.

/ +1
// we saw it coming

It would be total bullshiat for Obama to win the election because McCain has no money to spend against the Democratic nominee for President because the Democratic Senate won't approve nominees for the FEC.

We need Obama to win legitimately and fair. Let McCain spend money unless a quorum magically shows up and tells him he can't, it won't matter in the end.

One other option, Obama agrees to the same caps that McCain has imposed on him. He might just be a honourable enough guy to do so. It could break the cycle of big money deciding the election resulting in a real debate on the issues rather than attack ads.

But probably not.

Aexia: Actually the bigger problem -

Competitive race between two serious candidates with several million in the pot. Unserious candidate and a few of friends get him on the ballot and then pay themselves several hundred thousands dollars each for "consulting" fees.

Unserious candidate and friends won't seriously affect the race between the serious candidates, there's a barrier to entry in that you need to get on the ballot, and any "consulting" fees would be immediately reported. Serious candidates have an interest in keeping a close eye on scammers seeking to drain their election accounts.

Besides, if it were that easy, the same argument would be used against public financing of elections. You are just changing where the money comes from, not who is eligible for it or what they can spend it on.

Snarfangel: Unserious candidate and friends won't seriously affect the race between the serious candidates, there's a barrier to entry in that you need to get on the ballot, and any "consulting" fees would be immediately reported. Serious candidates have an interest in keeping a close eye on scammers seeking to drain their election accounts.

A barrier that's easily jumped when you have the promise of a 6-figure pay day at the end. And so what if it's reported? One man's con-man consultant is one woman's Mark Penn.

Besides, if it were that easy, the same argument would be used against public financing of elections. You are just changing where the money comes from, not who is eligible for it or what they can spend it on.

One difference is that you're not spending time and money fundraising for your opponents. Another is that public financing would have substantially less money involved.

Aexia: One difference is that you're not spending time and money fundraising for your opponents.

As opposed to forcing every taxpayer to foot the bill? "If you donate to Candidate X, Candidate Y will get a portion" is more morally defensible than "You *will* donate to Candidate X and Candidate Y equally."

Another is that public financing would have substantially less money involved.

IlGreven above said Then see contributions plummet. Which would it be? And the dollar amount doesn't make nearly as much difference as who it's coming from -- a hundred dollars from someone who doesn't want to spend it is a greater cost than a thousand dollars from someone who believes contributing is worthwhile.

Besides, there is something unseemly about requiring the public to pay for a politician's advertisements. "Let me take money from your wallet, so I can interrupt your TV shows to tell you what a nice guy I am."

kenfury: One other option, Obama agrees to the same caps that McCain has imposed on him. He might just be a honourable enough guy to do so. It could break the cycle of big money deciding the election resulting in a real debate on the issues rather than attack ads.

He can't. This is about primary spending limits, and Obama's spent more than double the public financing limit for the primary already.

Snarfangel: Why spend taxpayer dollars unnecessarily?

So you are convinced that big business, lobbyist, special interest based corrupt financing system is superior to a public financed clean system. Why not ban contributions above $100 per donor and rest could come from taxes. Even a presidential election does not costs more than $1 Billion, thats peanuts compared to other boondoggles that people are handed out every day.

/public financing of elections is the only Hillary campaign point that is superior what anyone else is offering.

bolzy: So you are convinced that big business, lobbyist, special interest based corrupt financing system is superior to a public financed clean system.

No, I'm convinced that a clean system financed by people who want to contribute is superior to a clean system funded by people who don't want to contribute.

/Incumbent politicians voting how much money they get from the public treasury is not a formula for a clean election.

ha-ha-Ha-HA-ha!

'Nuff said!

Not ironic.

/had to

its a very good law.

so basically, the democratic congress is blocking the assignment of individuals to a committee that MUST VOTE to release a man from a contract that he has never actually activated.

see, the feds must sign off to actually have secured a loan from an outside source...

so the democrats are blocking the assignment of individuals to a committee that is crucial to the operation of a presidential election year... sounds like election tampering to me.

sounds like the Supreme Court will have some interesting things to say.

What the hell does a presidential candidate do with all that damn money?! $200 million is enough to hire 1000 people at a middle-class salary with benefits for a year with enough left over to lease a jumbo jet to transport them all and return it with a full tank.

Oh. Commercials. Right. Sorry.