Playing "gotcha" on a technicality seems like a bad way to tarnish McCain's image. Had he actually received matching funds, this would be different, but he didn't, regardless of the technicality of the law, it's unlikely the average voter will change their mind over this.

They're trying to force him to take money that he doesn't want in order to kick in provisions that would make him in violation of the law if he took the money? This is not a "bread and butter" issue that the public is going to care about. I think that there are better ways to spend money.

Bush is intentionally keeping the FEC under quorum. This is the real story - it's about how the Republican Party is undermining any attempt to provide legal oversight for how they operate. That John McCain could benefit from this corrupt system, when he built his reputation as an honest reformer, is sadly ironic.

McCain used as collateral the promise to stay in the race long enough to get public funds to pay back the loan -- even if he was losing.

What he said was: If I'm not going to get enough money from fundraising because my campaign is going to tank, then despite the fact that I know I will lose, I will bilk the public purse out of enough money to pay you back, by staying in the race regardless. You can count on me to get public funds no matter how hopeless my run becomes.

He did this so he didn't have to tap his own money. No risk, no lost interest. It was a clear advantage to him.

The reason he had to do this end-run was because he himself had sponsored legislation to stop people borrowing against future public funding. This was a legal argument that his lawyers came up with, to circumvent his own legislation.

The committee said: Sorry, you are using our funds as collateral. The money you are borrowing is secured against public funds. That means you are in the system.

McCain said: Try and stop me.

This is why it's an issue. Everyone can use this same strategy. McCain has neutered his own law. It means that people are going to stay in the race when they otherwise wouldn't, just to claim public money to pay off their loans.

There has to be a ruling against McCain's trick here, otherwise the intent of the legislators (including McCain!) is being subverted.

This will blow up in their faces. The dems already have a bad rep for being the party of the trial lawyers, who right or wrong are generally held in low esteem in this country (until you need one, heh). Now they want to be seen as the perty that is trying to handicap the election through legal chicanery? It plays right into the Republican's wheelhouse.

so many Salon readers are so so flexible with regard to the law, when it it applies to a Republican who used campaign finance reform as his shield against his disgraceful corruption at the hands of Charles Keating.

I guess this is proof that the most unethical and illegal behavior is perfectly alright if you are a Republican.

Whether or not it's good political strategy (how it plays in Peoria), the Democrats have a responsibility to follow this up. You can't just do an end-run around the finance laws.

Personally I think campaign finance reform (and reforming lobbying and earmarks) is absolutely vital to America's health. The system is diseased. It's probably worse than any other Western country. McCain's conduct in this regard has been pathetic this election, in more ways than just this.

If you are going to talk strategy, I think it's OK, because it stops McCain bullying Obama into taking public financing. Obama will need a lot of cash to fight the smears this election.

With all due respect, I think you're going to far is saying that "the real point" in this "whole thing" is political posturing. It's fine to point out that this is in the DNC's political interests, but please don't let cynicism undermine the actual reporting of mccain manipulating the public financing system. Because *that* is the real story.

Why no mention that McCain received actual value from his application, approved by the FEC, to use matching funds (and be limited to $51 million by Sept 1st)?

Candidates who agree to accept matching funds are automatically placed on the ballots in at least two states (Ohio and I believe Indiana), for the GOP. If they don't take matching funds, they have to pay signature collectors to go out and get them thousands of signatures, or else they don't go on the ballots. McCain claimed he was taking matching funds, and was approved (he was issued a certificate from the FEC to prove it). This saved him an estimated $5-10 million he would have spent getting his name on those states' ballots. Now be begs off matching funds, because now he no longer needs it?

Basically, if the FEC does nothing, McCain broke Federal law (FYI - its a felony, not just a fine) and violated all the rules, cheating and stealing to win. Play it right, and make it easy and clear to the public, and its a winner for Dems!

McCain played a little fast and loose here, but I think he's with in bounds. But I do have 3 thoughts:

Whispers - Do you have evidence that Bush is intentionally keeping the FCC under quorum?

Zoomie - This issue is simply too complicated for most voters. Hardly a bread and butter issue.

Final thought: Obama is wrestling with his own issue on campaign finance. He said he would take federal funds but now may back away from that. While there is certainly a difference betwen a flip flop on one's own promise and skirting the law, the "he's a a hypocrite charge" is about the same.

Perhaps the Justice Department can appoint one of its US Attorneys to review and make a recommendation as to what the law allows.....

Sorry about that. I just thought it might be funny to see what the Loyal Bushies have to "independently" say.