tallguywithglasseson:
"As I was reading through this article, I realized I don't understand the process (or point) of loaning money to a PAC and then getting it back, or really understand what the hell she actually did, or whether or not what she's being criticized for is good, bad, or nothing."

In this case, here's basically what's happening. Senator McCaskill loaned her campaign (or prior campaigns, it appears) money. That's fine and dandy and nothing unusual. She wants the campaign to pay it back, which is also fine and dandy. But the campaign doesn't actually have the money, which is also not unusual. Normally, what happens next is that a) Senator McCaskill would forgive the loan, taking a $1.6 MM bath or b) Senator McCaskill would spend a bajillion hours on the phone, at fundraisers, doing mailings, etc. so that her campaign could raise the money $2,100 at a time ($5,000 at a time for PACS).

What Senator McCaskill is asking for is an exemption from federal financing laws so that just a few donors could ignore the normal restriction on giving to campaigns so that it'll be easier for her to raise the money to repay the debt. Two calls to a defense contractor and a neighbor seeking political influence would clear it right up, for example. Most likely, the money would come from a less-regulated group, say the Senate Democratic Campaign Committee or whatever.

"Ah, as you describe it, I will say what she's doing seems wrong, or at least iffy."

I'm going more with "iffy" than "wrong." It stinks to high heaven, but to her credit she is asking for an exemption rather than just doing it and asking for forgiveness. And though I and others described a horrible case of the debt being repaid by contributions from a couple of Richard McGottbucks types, as I said the more likely source will be the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (that's the correct name, to correct my error above) or someplace like that, rather than individuals or so-called "special interests." So she can owe her soul to Senator Chuck Schumer rather than someone you've never heard of. ;)

Sum Dum Gai: If she hadn't won federal office, it wouldn't even be an issue, she'd be obligated only to follow state law. However, because she did win a seat in the US Senate, she needs permission to conduct the fundraisers under Missouri law instead of federal law.

As rush22 intimates, if she hadn't sought federal office she would have been obliged to forgive the loan (or arrange for it to be paid back) before the Missouri law changed in her favor. She took advantage of the federal and Missouri campaign laws to move the debt to the federal campaign fund in the first place. One obvious reason for her to have done so is that federal campaigns (particularly for the Senate) attract more national attention and more national money. It is disingenuous to claim that now that she has made the transfer to the higher-profile campaign fund it's no big deal to rely on the state fund-raising laws to pay her back. She played loophole lotto. She lost. That doesn't make her a bad person, nor does asking the FEC for the exemption she seeks, but I would be surprised and disappointed if the FEC granted her request.

Actually she didn't move it to the federal fund; she transferred the loan between her state fund for governor and her State Auditor committee. The loan has remained at the state level the entire time.

I apologize -- I was startlingly unclear. When someone runs for federal office, all their campaign committees become federal ones. So you're right, she didn't "move" the debt to the federal campaign, it "got moved" there all by itself. Thanks for the correction.

Now, a smart farker may now be asking him or herself, "Self, why is there an exemption to apply for in the first place?" The intent is not to disadvantage federal officeholders who are running for state office. If Rep. Dorkwad is running for Governor against State Attorney General Asshat, he doesn't want to be in a position where he has to obey federal rules but the Atty. Gen. can raise money under more lenient state rules (if, of course, the rules are more lenient). Now Sen. McCaskill's case is pretty clearly not a parallel to that, but the law works by its words, not it's intent. If she thinks she's found a loophole, she is certainly entitled to try to take advantage of it. But again, I'd be surprised and disappointed if the FEC found that that loophole exists and I would want the law changed to eliminate it.