Give the guy a break. It's not as if he were an expert on campaign finance or something.

/It's that Feingold sumbiatch you should keep your eye on.

Going to be kind of hard to enforce the law against McCain when there are not enough members of the FEC to maintain a quorum. We can thank Bush for this mess too. By nominating Hans von Spakovsky (a person with an ethically challenged history (new window)) for the FEC, and directing the Republicans to block any other nomination hearing until he was confirmed, Bush guaranteed that the FEC was going to be crippled going into this election season.

GaryPDX

The group also charged that 3eDC, an Internet firm co-owned by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, improperly cut the amount the campaign owed it by $107,000.


That's the allegation, which is what the headline says. Instead of donating 100k, do 100k worth of work and make the bill evaporate. That's called an in-kind contribution, and you have to count it.

So with the FEC without a quorum, is there anything that can be done about allegations of campaign shenanigans?

Illegal ? Is that according to the actual laws of the land... or just the special subset of laws that apply to Team Glorious ?

Shady dealing in McCain's election funding?

It's more likely than you think.

GaryPDX: I'm curious about something. Does Obama want to eliminate the peoples representation to government?

I do not need a Lobbyist to contact my representative and let him know what I think. I can just go to Rep. Hank Johnson's (D-GA 4th district) web site and send him a note, or if I am feeling it requires a more personal touch I can try to schedule an appointment with one of his aids.

Is your congressman not as responsive? If not, maybe you should start looking for a new one this November.

GaryPDX: I'm curious about something. Does Obama want to eliminate the peoples representation to government? Even though there's a lot of cheesy behavior with lobbyists, it is kinda written up in the Constitution. What exactly does Obama want to do about lobbyists in general?

the constitution doesn't say anything that would protect lobbyists who use massive campaign contributions as a technically legal form of bribery to buy politicians.

Mordant: Illegal ? Is that according to the actual laws of the land... or just the special subset of laws that apply to Team Glorious ?

These would count as "in-kind" contributions from an entity (the lobbying firm) that is not able to provide political contributions (because it is an incorporated business).

GaryPDX: Flab: GaryPDX: What exactly does Obama want to do about lobbyists in general?

Edumacate yourself

I'm asking a specific question, I don't need the tolstoy of "ideas".

I don't know. It's a reasonable question: there are lots of lobbies, and not all of them dirty and unethical.

Personally, my interpretation is I see it as removing the money from the equation. The lobbyists can still meet with government employees and lobby on behalf of different businesses, causes, or special interests, but they can't just buy a seat at the table anymore.

Gary,

Rather than limiting people's right to petition, Obama is basically proposing that the petitioning process be as out and open to the public square as is humanly possible.

does everyone else's link end with "Because the Federal Election commission cant'..." ?

Tastes Like Chicken: Personally, my interpretation is I see it as removing the money from the equation.

that's pretty much it. and that's exactly what obama has done in this election. lobbyists can't give money to a politician for favors while they're in office... that's outright bribery. but while they're running, they can give campaign contributions... and the campaign finance laws don't apply as strictly to them.

what they do is find someone who's willing to play ball, and then fund that guy's campaign to make it a pretty one-sided fight. most politicians have come to completely rely on this source of funding for their campaigns, so they dare not piss off their masters in the years between or they'll have the rug pulled out from under them when it comes time for reelection. it really is a big racket.

remove that money from the picture, and you remove the undue influence it allows. lobbyists are still allowed to lobby, to speak on behalf of their people, company, or cause, but they no longer have the politician's nuts in a vice.

GaryPDX: HulkHands: GaryPDX: HulkHands: Earmarks will be in a database on the internet.

That could be fun..lol. I could have a LOT of fun with that.

I think it's a good idea. The resources are there. He's not the first Presidential candidate with that ability, but I think he would pull it off.

I agree..it's a good idea. Pulling it off is a completely different animal. If we had access to that list, 99% of earmarks would get ripped apart by the public. Most of them are major BS.

Well, since Obama's the guy proposing it, you should consider throwing him a vote. One of his major platform planks is more openness in government, particularly in the Executive.

GaryPDX: You didn't answer my question..does Obama want to eliminate lobbyists completely?

He has not said that he wishes to eliminate lobbyists through legislation, but instead create an environment of responsive politics where lobbyists are not necessary. His campaign so far has been a model of how he wishes to see the Democratic party operate, and he has now set down the same restrictions upon the DNC that he imposed on himself.

By leveraging technology he is making his campaign more responsive to his supporters as a whole instead of just his big money contributors. If the same dynamic can be applied to the House and Senate, lobbyists will find few venues at the federal level willing to hear them out.

McCain is now asking lobbying firms to work on behalf of his campaign and then write down the costs to avoid violating contribution limits. If you realized that's illegal, give yourself a PANCAKE

FTFY

McCain is a dirty, dirty man.

Tsk, tsk. What a maverick!

John McCain would never do anything illegal or immoral.

GaryPDX: OlafTheBent: GaryPDX: lol..I'm just trying to crystallize these things. I would venture 95% of all this election mumbo jumbo is smoke and mirrors coming from both sides.

I hear you. Put on your rubber boots because the bullshiat is a couple of feet thick already.

You got that right. I'd say..we get 2 percent clarity and 98% bullshiat.

...as opposed to the 100% Grade-A bullshiat we've been handed for the past 7 years, and the promise of more of the same in McCain?

GaryPDX:

Flab: GaryPDX: What exactly does Obama want to do about lobbyists in general?

Edumacate yourself

I'm asking a specific question, I don't need the tolstoy of "ideas".

Ah, the lamest excuse I've ever heard: I don't want to read his positions when presented to me.

that's not change I can believe in

Wow, really, you mean the guy that penned incumbent protection campaign finance reform is doing shady stuff with campaign finances.

UNPOSSIBLE!!!

Duke_Phillips: GaryPDX:

Flab: GaryPDX: What exactly does Obama want to do about lobbyists in general?

Edumacate yourself

I'm asking a specific question, I don't need the tolstoy of "ideas".

Ah, the lamest excuse I've ever heard: I don't want to read his positions when presented to me.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this happen:

Obama-hater: "He's just hot air! He has no positions!"

Obama-supporter: *posts links to extensive descriptions of Obama policies*

Obana-hater: "I'm not going to read all that! It's too much information!"

Edsel:

I don't think this situation was exactly that. But when asking about some of Obama's actual policies and getting linked to his site, is as helpful as asking if Dorito's are tasty and linking to Doritos.com for the answer.

It's not going to have any downsides or address problems.

Edsel:

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this happen:

Obama-hater: "He's just hot air! He has no positions!"

Obama-supporter: *posts links to extensive descriptions of Obama policies*

Obana-hater: "I'm not going to read all that! It's too much information!"


Zing.

Target Identified: Obama hater

Hates: The Blacks, The Jews, The Arabs, The Yellows, The Reds, The Obama, The Democracy, The Home and Garden Television

Likes: The Lethal Weapon 1, The Lethal Weapon 2, The Lethal Weapon 3, What Women Want

Firemarshallbill: Edsel:

I don't think this situation was exactly that. But when asking about some of Obama's actual policies and getting linked to his site, is as helpful as asking if Dorito's are tasty and linking to Doritos.com for the answer.

It's not going to have any downsides or address problems.

Not really. When you ask, "What does Obama plan to do about lobbyists," you can well expect to find what Obama plans to do about lobbyists on his site. It's not Obama's job to put downsides or problems on there - that's for the pundits to discuss (and the voter to find). As far as simply answering the question, linking to the website with twelve lines about his platform is quite sufficient.

moothemagiccow: burndtdan: lobbyists can't give money to a politician for favors while they're in office... that's outright bribery. but while they're running, they can give campaign contributions... and the campaign finance laws don't apply as strictly to them.

Explain to me exactly where you think "in office" ends and "running for office" begins. Any elected official without term limits is always running for office.

in office ends when the next guy is put in office. i never said the two were mutually exclusive. but there is a difference between money donated to a campaign fund, and money donated to their wallet, which is the difference i was talking about.

Firemarshalbill: Edsel:

I don't think this situation was exactly that. But when asking about some of Obama's actual policies and getting linked to his site, is as helpful as asking if Dorito's are tasty and linking to Doritos.com for the answer.

It's not going to have any downsides or address problems.

That's not the point. Asking for someone's opinion ("are Doritos tasty?") is quite frankly completely unrelated to answering the oft-parroted charge that Obama has nothing to back up his rhetoric. He has clearly defined policy statements that go into substantial detail on virtually every important issue. You want someone else to break them down for you or analyze them for the weaknesses? That's just being lazy.

To commandeer your analogy -- I'm buying the bag of Doritos and holding it out to you. You have to figure out for yourself if they're tasty.

GaryPDX: flavor of the month: GaryPDX

The group also charged that 3eDC, an Internet firm co-owned by McCain campaign manager Rick Davis, improperly cut the amount the campaign owed it by $107,000.


That's the allegation, which is what the headline says. Instead of donating 100k, do 100k worth of work and make the bill evaporate. That's called an in-kind contribution, and you have to count it.

ahhh...thanks.

Wiki is your friend...

Since then campaign finance limitations continue to be regulated in the Courts. In an interesting case, in 2005 in Washington State, Thurston County Judge Christopher Wickham ruled that media articles and segments were considered in-kind contributions under state law. The heart of the matter focused on the I-912 campaign to repeal a fuel tax, and specifically two broadcasters for Seattle conservative talker KVI.

On this occasion, it was overturned because it was deemed that on-air talk can be given free, so doesn't (in itself) have a cost to it. After all, the people were paid by a Conservative radio station to push conservative agenda.

Wiping out over $100,000 in debt for work already done and billed for? That's a whole new bag of turds for McCain.

The second issue arises from the campaign's resolution of a previous debt. As NationalJournal.com reported on May 23, 2008, that the campaign

"...paid off its debt to 3eDC, a private Web company linked to campaign manager Rick Davis and his longtime lobbying pal, Paul Manafort. But there's one big curiosity: Last year, the cash-starved campaign, without explanation, reported to the Federal Election Commission that 3eDC's bill had been reduced by $107,000."

The total campaign debt to 3eDC, according to NationalJournal.com, was $1,079,000. The bill was reduced to $972,000 and paid off by the campaign at a time the campaign was strapped for cash.

Go to http://www.campaignmoney.org/mccainfec for more than the free WSJ preview gives. It's Item #2.

Edsel: Firemarshalbill: Edsel:

I don't think this situation was exactly that. But when asking about some of Obama's actual policies and getting linked to his site, is as helpful as asking if Dorito's are tasty and linking to Doritos.com for the answer.

It's not going to have any downsides or address problems.

That's not the point. Asking for someone's opinion ("are Doritos tasty?") is quite frankly completely unrelated to answering the oft-parroted charge that Obama has nothing to back up his rhetoric. He has clearly defined policy statements that go into substantial detail on virtually every important issue. You want someone else to break them down for you or analyze them for the weaknesses? That's just being lazy.

To commandeer your analogy -- I'm buying the bag of Doritos and holding it out to you. You have to figure out for yourself if they're tasty.

but he likes for people to tell him what to think. dittoheads love the simplicity of it all. Just turn on the radio or tv and listen to Fox or Rush and they'll tell you what to think about every issue.

Link (new window)

The McCain girls have released their latest number. It is a spoof on "Maniac" (Flashdance?) and is called "McCainiac".

I'll forgive him ONE lobbyist if he gets them to stop singing.