"Years"

It's already astounding that the Norm Coleman-Al Franken Senate recount has taken this long to resolve. Franken has won the first recount and Coleman's lawyers even acknowledge that he will win the case before the Minnesota Supreme Court when the verdict comes down shortly. But this is the first time I've heard the word "years" to describe the timeframe for resolution.

Texas Sen. John Cornyn is threatening “World War III” if Democrats try to seat Al Franken in the Senate before Norm Coleman can pursue his case through the federal courts.

Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, acknowledges that a federal challenge to November’s elections could take “years” to resolve. But he’s adamant that Coleman deserves that chance — even if it means Minnesota is short a senator for the duration.

The big question concerns certification of the election. Democrats say that the Minnesota Supreme Court will grant certification after their ruling, regardless of an appeal. Cornyn thinks that Minnesota will be unable to certify if Coleman seeks a review from the US Supreme Court on the matter. Of course, the real "decider" in this case may be Republican Governor (and possible 2012 Presidential candidate) Tim Pawlenty.

It could takes months — or longer — to resolve a petition for review from the U.S. Supreme Court and even longer if the loser before the Minnesota Supreme Court files a new case in a U.S. District Court.

What happens in the meantime could come down to Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican who was on John McCain’s vice president shortlist and is contemplating a run for the GOP presidential nomination in 2012.

So far, Pawlenty isn’t saying what he’ll do once the court rules.

“The recent Minnesota Supreme Court decision indicated that an election certificate could be issued once the state courts process is complete,” said Brian McClung, a spokesman for the governor. “However, if one of the parties appeals to a federal court, a question will arise whether the federal court might stay the issuance of a certificate.

“We’ll see what the courts determine,” he said.

20 guesses what the guy who may want to top the GOP ticket in 2012 will decide.

I've been saying for a while that this recount battle obstructing Franken from the Senate was a sweet deal for Republicans. They get to expend some resources and shockingly little political capital in exchange for denying Democrats a key vote on issues like health care and energy and the Employee Free Choice Act. There was some hope that the "losers pay" law in Minnesota, combined with Norm Coleman's campaign inadvertently revealing thousands of their donors' personal information online, would make it difficult to raise the necessary funds to continue the court battle. However, a little-remarked-upon FEC ruling allows both candidates to return to former maxed-out donors to pay up to $30,400 per individual into a party recount and trial fund. Even PACs can give up to $15,000. So it would take a relatively small amount of wealthy donors to keep this going as long as possible.

What I cannot understand is why Coleman has taken such little heat for prolonging what by all accounts appears to be a losing battle, and for nakedly political reasons besides. Once the Minnesota Supreme Court rules in a matter of days, Democrats need to loudly call for Franken's seating at every possible opportunity.

Wal-Mart Nailed

Kudos to the coalition filing an FEC complaint against Wal-Mart for coercing their employees. At best this ends up with a pittance of a fine, but anything that puts their illegal practices in a national spotlight is positive. Plus, the intimidation that Wal-Mart is engaged in with respect to the Presidential election is the same intimidation they routinely engage in during union elections. They threaten to shut down stores, fire union activists, tell employees that their jobs are at stake, and generally do whatever they can to keep unions out. Coordinating with low-level managers on what Presidential candidate to vote for is a symptom of the same disease.

Speaking of which, what's with George McGovern sucking up to the corporate crowd and rejecting the Employee Free Choice Act? I know that labor torpedoed him in the 1972 elections, but surely he understands the importance of unions as an anti-poverty instrument. Apparently, this is nothing new for him; he's been tied in to anti-union lobbyists for a number of years now. Sad.

UPDATE: American Rights At Work has a full report.

Turnabout, Fair Play, Etc.

Over the last week, this very odd circumstance has occurred where Barack Obama is universally chastised for rejecting public money in the general election, yet John McCain is not touched for accepting public money to gain ballot access and get favorable loans, then dropping out of the system without a ruling from the FEC and spending unlimited amounts in the primary.

Part of this was a total ignorance of campaign finance laws from the punditocracy, but also the silence from the top of the opposing organization. The DNC has filed a number of lawsuits, but Team Obama had yet to break the silence over McCain's illegalities and gaming the public financing system.

Until today.

David Plouffe brought a prop to his briefing with reporter: a copy of John McCain's signature on a state election document in which he attested that he'd be taking public financing.

"John McCain is spending tens of millions of dollars, we believe, unlawfully,' he said, waving the document.

They are raising this issue at precisely the right time. Yesterday five FEC nominees were confirmed by the Senate by a voice vote, allowing them to reach a quorum and act on election matters. Until now, the DNC lawsuits subject to consideration by the FEC were pretty much moot because there was, in effect, no FEC. But that has changed, and the Obama camp leaped on this to push back on these context-free charges of duplicity with respect to campaign finance.

When McCain stated in election documents that he will be taking public money, the normal fee for appearing on the primary ballot is waived. That is a material benefit from the public system despite his spending well above those limits. In addition, there is the matter of the campaign loan, which vowed to stay in the public system as a kind of collateral to ensure repayment. The point is that McCain has double-dipped; he benefited from public money without being held to any limits. And he "withdrew" from the system simply by saying "I withdraw" and without receiving a ruling from the FEC, which they are now in a position to give.

This isn't likely to stop the media from droning on about how callous and cruel Obama is for taking money from the public instead of participating in public financing, but is may move the drone in another direction. McCain's asset of being a reformer has already taken a number of hits this campaign season, but this would be one on a clear issue where McCain believes he has the better of the argument. He doesn't; he's a symbol of why the system is broken, and why Obama's parallel public financing system makes a hell of a lot more sense.

...note that McCain actually faces $25,000 in fines and 5 years in prison for what he's doing right now, if it were adjudicated effectively.

Some Attention Would Be Great

I don't know what it's going to take to get the punditocracy to understand that, while Barack Obama reneged on a fairly vague pledge to enter the public financing system for the general election, John McCain is actually breaking campaign finance laws as we speak by benefiting from public money in the primaries and pretending to opt out at the same time. McCain's simply too cemented as a maverick in the minds of morons like Richard Cohen for this to penetrate, but the DNC is trying, and today they filed a lawsuit:

Washington, DC -The Democratic National Committee today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in D.C. to compel the Federal Election Commission (FEC) to investigate John McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the FEC's matching funds program despite using the program to financially benefit his campaign - just one of many McCain campaign improprieties. To view a copy of the DNC's lawsuit, please visit [here].

John McCain talks about setting a new standard for "transparency and accountability" yet when it comes to his campaign, he doesn't seem to think the rules apply to him. First, he used taxpayer dollars to secure a loan to keep his campaign afloat in the primary, a move that's clearly against the law. Then the Wall Street Journal reported that McCain refused to pay for his campaign's use of a corporate jet - again against the law - and last week, his trip to Canada came under question for possible violations of federal law.

"Whether it's using a taxpayer funded loan to keep his campaign afloat, refusing to reimburse for his campaign's use of a corporate jet, or violating federal laws on a foreign campaign trip, John McCain has shown an increasingly troubling pattern of impropriety," said Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean. "John McCain tries to brand himself as a reformer but how can the American people believe he'll change Washington when it's clear he thinks the rules apply to everyone but him? We had enough of that with the Bush Administration. We don't need it again with John McCain."

In order to receive matching funds, John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC to accept spending limits and to abide by the conditions of receiving those funds. The FEC requires that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be granted by the FEC. FEC Chairman David Mason made this clear in a letter to McCain advising him that the law requires the FEC to approve his request to withdraw from his contract - a move McCain ignored and cost Mason his job.

According to past Commission rulings, the McCain campaign would not be allowed to withdraw from matching funds because it already violated a key condition for being let out of the program - pledging matching funds as collateral for a private loan. McCain obtained a $4 million line of credit -- drew $2,971,697 from it - and documents make clear that the promise of public financing was used to secure his loan.

On February 25, 2008, the DNC filed a complaint with the FEC calling on the Commission to investigate whether the McCain campaign is breaking the law by ignoring spending limits in the primary.The FEC has failed to act within 120 days, so the DNC is now asking the court to require the Commission to act on the original administrative complaint. Now that it appears that the Senate is on track to approve the needed FEC nominations, the DNC is also making clear that this should be on the top of the FEC's agenda.

The problem is that, to a large section of the media establishment, the rules DO apply to everyone but John McCain.

(I only touched on Richard Cohen's column in this post, but you really should read it. The new argument is that McCain's flip-flops don't mean anything because he was a POW. Seriously.)

McCain Outsources His Brain

The New York Times did a study of John McCain's closeness to President Bush, and tried super-hard to exonerate him, but couldn't. They had to admit that his stances on the biggest issues facing the country are identical to Bush, and sometimes even at odds with his prior positions. It's pretty easy to figure out why this is. The campaign is run by practically every Republican lobbyist on K Street, and sometime after the primary they sat him down and told him exactly what he would believe and espouse and enact if installed in the White House. And McCain nodded his head and cooed "Anything else, guys?" That's how you have to judge everything out of this guy's mouth. The response to McCain calling for 45 new nuclear reactors has to be "How many lobbyists from the nuclear industry on his staff," as an example.

Problem is, they were sloppy. In addition to wanting their agenda passed starting January 2009, they wanted it immediately. And so he intervened on behalf of Airbus in awarding a lucrative Air Force contract, selling out American workers at Boeing and being so cavalier about it that the GAO ruled the deal was in fact illegal. (McCain lost any hope of winning the state of Washington with this blunder, and there's also a big Boeing facility in Wichita, Kansas, which might get competitive by the time we're done).

And despite the lobbyists swimming around the campaign, McCain found himself last year short on cash. So he flew around on his sugar momma's jet without reimbursing her, and he sold out the campaign finance process and tried to opt out of the public financing system while benefiting from it in collateral loans and ballot access. This isn't a result of financial influence from lobbyists, but it does reflect the ETHOS of a lobbyist.

McCain is now 100% pure lobbyist, without convictions or honor of his own. He's outsourced his own brain.

Friday News Dump Alert

Democrats held the line and Hans von Spakovsky is out as FEC Commissioner.

President Bush's contentious nominee for the Federal Election Commission has yanked his name from consideration, potentially ending a broader confirmation deadlock in the Senate.

Hans von Spakovsky, a former Justice Department official who never had Democratic support to win confirmation, withdrew his nomination on Friday.

Bush "reluctantly accepted" von Spakovsky's request, the White House said.

I heard that Bush was giving up on the von Spakovsky nomination in solidarity with the troops.

Get this, Hans sez that the drawn-out nomination process has been terribly hard on his family and he doesn't have the financial resources to wait around. Well that's just terrible. Hopefully some think tank like Heritage or AEI in need of a known vote suppressor on staff will pick up the slack for him. Or maybe someone is needed to go around the country and agitate for crap voter ID laws to depress turnout in November. I'm sure he'll find something.

This is kind of a big deal because it'll break the deadlock at the FEC and get it to function again in this election year. And with McCain breaking finance laws with each passing day by continuing to spend primary money over the limit without getting out of the public system, the oversight agency ought to be in working order. (I say kind of because the FEC is a rather toothless body)

But really it's big because of poor George and Hans, getting kicked around again. It feels good to win one every so often.

Shows How Much Power Bush Has

Mitch McConnell is the de facto President right now.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said he would not allow Democrats a separate vote on each nominee and instead wanted the FEC nominees voted on as a package, which would ensure approval of the most controversial GOP pick, Hans von Spakovsky. Democrats have made it clear that von Spakovsky would not pass the Senate while the other four nominees would be approved.

The FEC consists of six commissioners, and the agency needs a minimum of four commissioners to meet a quorum and issue legal opinions. Since the beginning of this year, the FEC has had only two working commissioners and has been unable to deal with everything from John McCain's public financing to every day legal opinions on campaign ads.

McConnell said no deal has been made and he wants von Spakovsky approved along with the two pending Democrats and two pending Republican nominees.

McConnell said "they'll either let all six [ commissioners] go, or we will not have solved the problem."

Remember, Reid brokered this deal with the White House. But McConnell could care less.

For context, McConnell in the past has been a real problem for John McCain, and they've particularly clashed over campaign finance reform - he was the lawmaker who took McCain-Feingold to court. So considering that the "deal" would get rid of McCain enemy David Mason from the FEC, McConnell isn't exactly falling all over himself to throw the Republican nominee a lifeline. In addition, McConnell, who's up for re-election and is as shady as they come when it comes to fundraising, is maybe the least likely politician in Washington to want a working FEC.

A non-functional FEC during a Presidential election year is a recipe for chaos. But Harry Reid hasn't been able to figure out a way to squeeze McConnell on this (or any of his obstructionism) whatsoever, even though his denial of an "upperdown vote" is the height of hypocrisy from the party of Justice Sunday. So the stalemate continues.

Deal And No Deal

The good news - President Bush and top Democrats have the framework of a deal that would provide us with a working FEC for the general election. The bad news - it's an exceedingly strange "deal".

To break the impasse, President George W. Bush nominated three new candidates to serve on the panel, but he refused to withdraw his nomination of Republican Hans von Spakovsky to serve on the FEC despite Democrats' opposition.

They have blocked his nomination because of his work at the Justice Department's voting division, questioning whether he tried to inject politics into the group meant to independently oversee the country's voting laws.

The White House believes he "would be confirmed by the Senate if allowed a vote," said White House Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten in a letter to Reid on Tuesday.

As part of the package, Bush nominated Democrat Cynthia Bauerly, legislative director to New York Sen. Charles Schumer, Republican attorney Donald McGahn, and Republican Caroline Hunter, who works on the Election Assistance Commission.

Let's look at that again. Bush nominated von Spakovsky and two new Republicans. One of them would replace current FEC commissioner David Mason. Mason, one of two remaining on the FEC at present, has been a thorn in the side of presumptive GOP nominee John W. McCain.

In February, the McCain campaign notified the FEC that it was withdrawing from the public financing system for the primary. Although McCain had once opted in, his campaign said that it had never received public funds and so could opt out. The move meant that McCain would not be bound by the $54 million spending limit for the system.

But Mason balked. McCain couldn't just opt out -- the FEC had to approve his request before he could. And Mason also indicated that a tricky bank loan might mean that McCain had locked himself in to the system. That would be disastrous for the campaign, since the Dem nominee would have a tremendous spending advantage through August. So McCain's campaign has continued to spend away, far surpassing the limit already. The Democratic Party has filed a complaint with the FEC and has also taken the matter to court.

And now Mason is getting the boot.

So the Bush Administration fired Mason, in essence, for insubordination, and will offer the same vote suppression expert von Spakovsky as part of their "deal."

'Scuse me?

The one concession in this deal is that von Spakovsky will get a separate vote. Now, the Bush Administration fully believes he'll pass under that standard, while Harry Reid's office says they "expect" to defeat von Spakovsky. But I don't know what they're basing that on. As far as I can tell there's no "upperdown vote" agreed to here, so his confirmation could be filibustered. Still, Mitch McConnell is wily and there are so many obstructions they've thrown up in the past, that I could easily see a scenario where they agree to move forward on some minor initiatives in exchange for von Spakovsky's nomination. Alternatively, the Republicans will relent on von Spakovsky in exchange for retroactive immunity for the telecoms. There are a lot of balls in the air.

That must not happen. Christy at FDL details why von Spakovsky is simply unacceptable and urges you to call members of the Senate Rules Committee, which has jurisdiction. It's not worth it to get a known vote suppressor installed on the ruling electoral body in the United States, and pick off a Republican who seems to have a functioning independent mind in the process.

CA-04: The GOP Primary Fight Gets Nastier

Now Doug Ose is alleging illegal coordination between Tom McClintock and a 501(c)(4) group headed by poster boy for Republican losers in the state:

A California-based group and other local officials filed a Federal Election Commission (FEC) complaint Monday regarding the alleged ties between an ex-aide to Rep. Richard Pombo (R-Calif.) and state Sen. Tom McClintock (R).

McClintock and former Rep. Doug Ose (R-Calif.) are in a bitter primary battle to face off against Democrat Charlie Brown this fall for retiring Rep. John Doolittle’s (R-Calif.) seat.

At issue is the role of Steve Ding — an ex-McClintock consultant and former chief of staff for Pombo — and The Partnership for America, a 501(c)4 advocacy group headed by Pombo.

McClatchy recently reported that Pombo’s group is organizing a $660,000 independent campaign in the 4th congressional district.

Whoever comes out of the primary is going to be tainted by multiple smears, and flat broke. McClintock and Ose are both willing to risk that because they think the 4th District is automatically Republican, and they're underestimating the strength of Charlie Brown.

At their peril.

You can read on for McClintock's ties to Pombo and various Indian gaming groups.

Nice Hedge You've Got There

After a weekend of total radio silence on the revelations that the American President approved and designated torture tactics on detainees, a reporter finally got up the gumption to ask John McCain a kind of oblique question about it at the Associated Press annual meeting, without referring to the President. And in his answer, McCain got all mixed up again.

Reporter: Why doesn't the same principle apply to detainee enemy combatants, don't we stand for something better...

McCain: Yes, and I’ve made it very clear, I’ve made it very clear in my statements and in my support of the Detainee Treatment Act, the Geneva Conventions, etc., that there may be some additional techniques to be used, but none of those would violate the Geneva Conventions, the Detainee Treatment Act…And we cannot ever, in my view, torture any American, that includes waterboarding.

The "American" slip-up may have been a slip-up. But the weasel language of "there may be some additional techniques to be used," there, my friends, lies the rub. Considering that McCain already voted against banning the CIA from using waterboarding, which he very specifically describes as torture, then that must be one of those additional techniques. And I'm guessing they wouldn't violate those international agreements and American laws because... the President says so.

McCain is essentially setting out exactly the same position as the President has - forcefully stating that we do not torture in public, while authorizing and directing torture techniques in private, and finding lackeys to write legal opinions indemnifying the conduct. The consequences of those techniques has been nothing short of murder, dozens of homicides of prisoners while in US custody. Let's pick a couple at random:

Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide [...]

Cause of death: Closed head injury with a cortical brain contusion and subdural hematoma. Manner of Death: Homicide. Iraqi male civilian detainee died in US custody 12 hours after a reported escape attempt. Physical force was required to subdue the detainee, and during the restraining process, his forehead hit the ground. Closed head injury: subarachnoid hemorrhage over brain, cortical brain contusion, right subdural hematoma. Additional injuries: fractured rib, multiple contusions and abrasions to head, torso and extremities. Abrasions on wrists and ankles consistent with restraint. Hemorrhage of right muscle of neck. No evidence of natural disease. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 closed head injury - died 12 hours after escape attempt."

This is, after all, typical McCain. He says that US troops require significant educational benefits but won't sign on to support a 21st-century GI Bill. He attacks Democratic groups that are "funded by George Soros" and has taken hundreds of thousands from Soros himself. He promises "straight talk" and gets kicked off the Project Vote Smart board for refusing to answer the questions in their "Political Courage Test." He calls himself a public financing champion and attacks Barack Obama for possibly opting out of the Presidential public financing system, while he illegally spends money for the primary despite not being taken out of the public financing system by the FEC. And on and on.

The press loves McCain (for the honor of speaking to him, they handed him the gift of coffee and donuts today) so this massive hedge on torture, combined with recent votes allowing the CIA to continue to engage in it, will probably go unnoticed. The elephant in the room, George Bush's admission of guilt in violating domestic and international laws regarding toture, has gone almost completely unnoticed, after all.

Fit McCain For Leg Irons

John McCain is a fugitive from justice. He spoke at the Los Angeles World Affairs Council a man on the lam. With every passing day, every fill-up on the Straight Talk Express, every sandwich, every long-distance phone call to a lobbyist friend, he is further breaking campaign finance law. He has overspent federal limits while remaining in the public system for the primaries. And the netroots is doing something about it.

Yesterday afternoon, FDL's Jane Hamsher filed a complaint with the FEC charging John McCain with violations of campaign finance law for spending beyond limits imposed by his decision to take public financing.

McCain has claimed he is backing off that decision, and justifies it with the fact that he never received any of that public money. However, the law clearly states that he is bound by those limits if he uses the promise of those funds in order to secure campaign loans -- something he absolutely did.

I signed on to this early, and I would have tried to make a citizen's arrest in LA today if I had been awake earlier (this is why I'm not a cop). You can sign on to the complaint as well here. The full text is here (PDF). This is a great action by the netroots.

Book 'em, Dan-o!

The Blessed Company of St. McCain

So John Hagee's going to open up in the Sunday New York Times, and among other things he's going to reiterate that John W. McCain actively sought out his endorsement. Which isn't surprising, since in addition to anti-Semitic, Catholic-hating bitter-ender Rapturists, McCain also has people like this on the payroll.

A McCain campaign aide actively pushed an incendiary, racially-charged video that uses the controversial words of Barack Obama's pastor to tar Obama as unpatriotic -- despite the fact that McCain himself has suggested that Obama shouldn't be held accountable for Wright's views.

The aide, Soren Dayton, who works in McCain's political department, has been suspended from the campaign, a McCain spokesperson, Jill Hazelbaker, confimed to me.

Suspended. With full pay and a pat on the head, I imagine. It matters more, after all, that he got the information out there, rather than the discipline.

In addition, here are some of the delightful chaps that populated McCain's fundraiser in London, which was held during a taxpayer-funded Senate trip (which he's reimbursing the government for but as woefully inaccurate levels):

Proper attire for the luncheon affair is “lounge wear,” according to the Washington Post, which also reported that the event will be held at Spencer House on St. James’s Place, “by kind permission” of Lord Rothschild and Nathaniel Rothschild.

The latter “may become the richest Rothschild of them all,” according to a profile last year in the New York Times. The story said Nathaniel Rothschild was “close to becoming a billionaire through a web of private equity investments” in Eastern Europe, and that he was “a principal adviser to Oleg Deripaska, one of the richest oligarchs in Russia.” Indeed, the Daily Mail has said that Rothschild’s wealth had “been accrued in his role as the adviser to” Deripaska.

Deripaska’s name might ring a bell. Back in early 2006, lobbyist Rick Davis, who now serves as McCain’s campaign advisor, helped introduce the senator and the oligarch during an international economic conference in Switzerland. McCain didn’t do anything for Deripaska after the meeting, but the Russian was grateful for the introduction. Deripaska wrote “a thank-you note to Davis and his partner and offer[ed] to assist them in a subsequent business deal,” according to the Washington Post.

Of course, there's no need to chastise McCain for hanging out with rogues, haters, and rubes, when in fact, he's a convicted felon in his own right.

McCain has now spent $58.4 million in his primary bid, surpassing the $50 million limit he would have faced if he participated in the public financing system he had been certified to join. McCain has decided not to accept the public matching funds, but the FEC wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for a $4 million loan.

McCain and his lawyers said the loan was secured with other collateral, thus freeing him to spend as much money as he wishes on his primary campaign. The Democratic National Committee has filed a complaint with the FEC arguing McCain cannot withdraw from the public finance system without FEC approval.

Until the FEC releases him from the public system, McCain with each passing day is breaking the law by spending over the legal limit. The recommended sentence is FIVE YEARS IN PRISON.

The 5 Stages of McCain Grief

As McCain fantasy turns inexorably to McCain reality, media figures are truly struggling with how to deal with it. There's a definite 5-stages-of-grief feel to it. With denial and depression we have Joke Line, who knows that McCain's statements on Iraq are reductive and stupid, but can't imagine that, you know, he really believes that:

They'd be taking a country? Last time I checked, Iraq has a Shi'ite majority. McCain thinks the Shi'ites--the Mahdi Army, the Badr Corps (and yes, the Iranians)--would allow a small group of Sunni extremists to take over? In fact, as noted above, the vast majority of indigenous Iraqi Sunnis aren't too thrilled about the AQI presence in their country, either. (The usual caveats apply: AQI is barbaric, dastardly and intent on violating the Qu'ran by engaging in the annihilation of innocents. We can't get rid of them fast enough.)

The sadness here is that McCain knows better. He knows the complexities of the world, and the region. But I suspect he's overplaying his Iraq hand in order to win favor with the wingnuts in his party. That is extremely unfortunate: As McCain should know better than anyone, it is extremely dishonorable for politicians to play bloody-shirt games when the nation is at war.

Giving us the bargaining is Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, a McCain ally in the campaign finance reform fight who reacts to the obvious illegality in McCain's gaming the public financing system by trying to direct the issue elsewhere:

The shut down of the Federal Election Commission has taken center stage because there is no functioning agency to deal with the issue of whether bank loans taken out by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), and the collateral provided for those bank loans, means that Senator McCain cannot withdraw from the presidential primary public financing system and is bound by its spending limits for the rest of his primary campaign.

The Washington Post has noted in an article (February 27, 2008), "the dispute centers on the most esoteric aspects of campaign finance law." It also involves interpretations of the loan agreement between McCain and the bank, and the question of what constitutes "collateral" for the loan.

The dispute, which could have enormous consequences for the Democratic and Republican presidential nominees, is further complicated by the fact that the complex legal questions involved here are being raised in the intense heat of the battle for the presidency.

The unprecedented legal issues involved in this dispute raise questions of both campaign finance and commercial banking law, and are issues that have to be resolved by the FEC and potentially the federal courts.

Democracy 21 does not have the answers to the legal questions that have been raised. There are novel and close questions.

In other words, McCain is a saint and somebody else can figure out if using the public system to get a bank loan and eliminate ballot access fees is, you know, a violation of the spirit of the law.

And producing acceptance is George Will. There's a bit of sleight-of-hand in the op-ed, with Will subtly blaming Barack Obama for holding up the FEC on the McCain matter when it's clearly the fault of Mitch McConnell packaging all these FEC commissioner's confirmations together. But generally this is solid.

First, the Times muddied, with unsubstantiated sexual innuendo about a female lobbyist, a story about McCain's flights on jets owned by corporations with business before the Senate Commerce Committee, and his meeting with a broadcaster (McCain at first denied it happened; the broadcaster insists it did, and McCain now agrees) who sought and received McCain's help in pressuring the Federal Communications Commission. Perhaps McCain did nothing corrupt, but he promiscuously accuses others of corruption, or the "appearance" thereof. And he insists that the appearance of corruption justifies laws criminalizing political behavior -- e.g., broadcasting an electioneering communication that "refers to" a federal candidate during the McCain-Feingold blackout period close to an election.

McCain should thank the Times also because its semi-steamy story distracted attention from an unsavory story about McCain's dexterity in gaming the system for taxpayer financing of campaigns. Last summer, when his mismanagement of his campaign left it destitute, he applied for public funding, which entails spending limits. He seemed to promise to use tax dollars as partial collateral for a bank loan [...]

In 2001, McCain, a situational ethicist regarding "big money" in politics, founded the Reform Institute to lobby for his agenda of campaign restrictions. It accepted large contributions, some of six figures, from corporations with business before the Commerce Committee (e.g., Echosphere, DISH Network, Cablevision Systems Corp., a charity funded by the head of Univision). The Reform Institute's leadership included Potter and two others who are senior advisers in McCain's campaign, Rick Davis and Carla Eudy.

Although his campaign is run by lobbyists; and although his dealings with lobbyists have generated what he, when judging the behavior of others, calls corrupt appearances; and although he has profited from his manipulation of the taxpayer-funding system that is celebrated by reformers -- still, he probably is innocent of insincerity. Such is his towering moral vanity, he seems sincerely to consider it theoretically impossible for him to commit the offenses of appearances that he incessantly ascribes to others.

It's still unclear exactly who will join Will in the acceptance stage. But they're clearly finding an answer for their grief at their soiled Maverick.

Big-Spendin' McCain Update

So the DNC's complaint to the FEC is clearly getting under John McCain's skin. Leading to this ludicrous framing: that ripping off American taxpayers is a civil rights issue:

...Potter said the Supreme Court concluded that public financing for campaigns is constitutional because it is voluntary. "As a result, candidates have a constitutional right to withdraw from the program."

Of course, the problem is they've already USED the program. They used the money to get ballot access in Ohio and Delaware (Here's the relevant proof from Ohio, and the one from Delaware). They used the money in the public system to get a bank loan. There is no known Constitutional right that I know of for using public money and then pretending you didn't.

So in addition to the "Because I said so" defense, McCain is going to have to get an FEC ruling. Only the FEC only has two commissioners on it, due to a jam caused by Hans von Spakovsky's nomination and the unwillingness by Senate Republicans to decouple his confirmation from the other three broadly acceptable commissioners-in-waiting. Keep in mind that the DNC could actually file suit to force compliance on this. So John McCain may have to rely on Mitch McConnell to save his Presidential campaign. Which puts McConnell, who has been public enemy #1 on campaign finance issues, in a unique position.

This puts the Dems in a strong position--by denying the FEC a quorum, they can deny McCain the ability to get out of matching funds. They don't have to do anything except continue to refuse to consider all four nominated commissioners a hearing together; so long as they continue to insist that von Spakovsky receive his own hearing, things won't move forward.

Unless Mitch McConnell budges on his insistence that all the commissioners receive a hearing together.

But here 's the thing. Mitch McConnell (whom I'd include among those GOP bigwigs whose support Mitt would get before threatening to un-suspend his campaign) hates John McCain. Absolutely hates him.

In fact, I'd say that McConnell is one of the most likely sources for the Iseman story in the first place. After all, the first piece of evidence to counter McCain's denials was McCain's deposition in McConnell's suit against the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law (BCRA is one of the reasons McConnell hates McCain so much). The deposition was given to McConnell's attorney in that suit, Floyd Abrams. While the deposition is publicly available, it is likely that someone pointed Isikoff to it. If so, I'm guessing that someone is rather closer to McConnell than he is to McCain.

Meanwhile, the good government reform groups have taken a complete pass on McCain's dirty effort to rip off taxpayers. Public Citizen (the group founded by Ralph Nader) is even offering testimony on McCain's behalf. This is nuts.

I've alluded to this with subtle jabs, but it's time to come out and say it clearly: There are a set of groups in Washington identified with the cause of campaign finance reform that seem to sit up at night staring at a picture of John McCain and waiting for the phone to ring. The four-year affair that ended with passage of the McCain-Feingold legislation banning soft money was the high point of their lives (to their credit, it was quite a political achievement -- still the only piece of legislation enacted over the objections of a majority of Republicans and the misgivings of Bush) but at this point, especially after the (entirely predictable) Supreme Court decision striking down its restrictions on television ads, McCain-Feingold doesn't amount to more than a memory.

This unrequited loyalty not only apparently gives McCain a free pass on abuses such as the loan; it has allowed him to essentially dominate the field, without lifting a finger. McCain's monopoly, as the only Republican interested in reform, gave him incredible power over the agenda (pushing purely restrictive policies, such as the proposed restrictions on political bloggers in 2005, and on non-profits the previous year) and leverage over the organizations, whose support from foundations depends on being bipartisan. This "McCain Wing" of the campaign finance reform movement is led by Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, both generally admirable and adept organizations, with small staffs and significant influence on the Hill and with reporters and editorial writers. The largest campaign finance organization, and the only one with real members, Common Cause, has been gradually moving beyond the cramped, restrictive view of reform represented by the McCain wing toward a more open approach, with great internal angst -- a longer story than can be told in a blog post!

Matt Stoller has more on Common Cause's legacy of failure. These so-called Democratic allies simply have not properly understood the current political climate and have hampered efforts at progressive change over and over. The single-issue groups have to adapt to remain relevant. And part of that is recognizing the big picture rather than keeping loyalty to Republicans who offer little more than lip service to them.

UPDATE: I forgot: McCain's other defense of his actions was to whine "B-But Howard Dean did it too," always my favorite Republican excuse for lawbreaking - "but it was widespread lawbreaking!" And in this case, it's not true, and Dean has the primary evidence. The bottom line is that Dean didn't take out a loan with public money used as collateral, and he didn't use the public system to save millions in ballot access fees.

McCain's McCain-Feingold Problem

The DNC has filed a complaint with the FEC against John McCain for violating public financing laws.

In order to receive matching funds, John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC to accept spending limits and to abide by the conditions of receiving those funds. The FEC makes clear that any request to withdraw from the agreement must be granted by the FEC. In other words, McCain can't just unilaterally withdraw. FEC Chairman David Mason made this clear in a letter to McCain advising him that the law requires the FEC to approve his request to withdraw from his contract.

According to past Commission rulings, the McCain campaign would not be allowed to withdraw from matching funds because it has already violated a key condition for being let out of the program - pledging matching funds as collateral for a private loan. McCain obtained a $4 million line of credit -- drew $2,971,697 from it - and documents make clear that the promise of public financing was used to secure his loan.

Not only that, McCain used his opting into the public system to waive ballot access fees in upcoming primary states. That translates into millions of dollars, so the fact that McCain has claimed that he's received no material benefit from the public system because the checks haven't been cut yet is simply wrong.

The other issue is that the public financing system limits campaign spending for the primaries, and for McCain that means right up until September, when he is nominated at the convention. McCain is almost up to that limit of $54 million dollars, which means he faces the very real proposition of either being broke for seven months, or breaking his own campaign finance law through spending, which would carry a JAIL SENTENCE. FEC Commissioner David Mason has already said that there would need to be a ruling to let McCain out of the public system. Jonathan Singer has more.

What's so interesting about this is that this was supposed to be an issue where Barack Obama was vulnerable because of perceived waffling over whether or not to opt out of the public system in the general election. He's clarified the issue and it won't be a factor, and yet McCain now is in major trouble because of his dirty efforts to game the system.

It's The Lying, It's The Favors

The John McCain/lobbyist story has officially jumped into a serious issue, at least in the eyes of the print media. While St. Maverick is certainly caught in a lie over his blanket denial of writing letters to the FCC on behalf of Paxson Communications, now there are questions over another FCC letter.

WASHINGTON — In late 1998, Senator John McCain sent an unusually blunt letter to the head of the Federal Communications Commission, warning that he would try to overhaul the agency if it closed a broadcast ownership loophole.

The letter, and two later ones signed by Mr. McCain, then chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, urged the commission to abandon plans to close a loophole vitally important to Glencairn Ltd., a client of Vicki Iseman, a lobbyist. The provision enabled one of the nation’s largest broadcasting companies, Sinclair, to use a marketing agreement with Glencairn, a far smaller broadcaster, to get around a restriction barring single ownership of two television stations in the same city.

Sinclair Broadcasting, as we know, is the right-wing media company that made "Stolen Honor," the documentary hit job on John Kerry in 2004. They broadcast it over all their television stations, and at the time John McCain lamented the documentary as a result of media consolidation. Yet here we have him writing letters to keep exactly that kind of media consolidation in place.

(He really should have gone further, by the way, since his military honor is going to come into question as the campaign goes on.)

Emptywheel has the definitive take on this story, and highlights this point:

For its part, Glencairn appeared to have been getting little support in Congress until it retained Ms. Iseman in 1998.

Edwin Edwards, who was the president of the company at the time, said in a recent interview that after retaining Ms. Iseman, he was able to get heard by Mr. McCain.

“We were pounding the pavement in Washington,” Mr. Edwards said. “We recruited help from as many people as we could. We knocked on every door just trying to get support.”

Iseman certainly had the ability to get McCain to do what was beneficial for her clients. The right can try to make this all about sex, but it's really gone well beyond that. This is about Maverick McReform-O-Straight Talk doing favors for corporate interests. All the time.

Not to mention that he's scamming the public financing system, reducing his credibility even further.

Republican Sen. John McCain might well ride out his standoff with federal regulators over his withdrawal from public financing for the primaries.

The contretemps, however, could haunt him in the general election.

The Federal Election Commission's decision to challenge McCain has forced the Arizona senator and likely Republican presidential nominee to defy the government's top campaign finance regulator in an area of law that McCain himself has helped seed with regulations.

His defiance, legally defensible or not, threatens to strip him of the moral high ground he needs to level the financial playing field for the general election.

McCain's defiance of the FEC, if rulings eventually go against him, carry JAIL TERMS of up to five years. Which of course he knows, since he WROTE THE LAW.

Then there are the confluence of interests between McCain, Iseman's lobbying firm, Carnival Cruise Lines (who leased ships to FEMA under a no-bid contract to house rescue workers in the Gulf Coast for a ridiculously overpriced sum), and Jeb Bush. That one's complicated, but if you're interested it's over here.

McCain has a real problem now, one that's going to carry all the way to November. His integrity is in serious question, and he's building a habit of lying to the press, which is breaking down the firewall he nromally holds, where the media won't report on him critically.

Expect many, many more of these stories.

The Right To Vote

Patrick Leahy just endorsed Barack Obama, and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee had this to say about this flap over the "at-large" precincts in Nevada being set up for shift workers at the casinos.

Leahy also came out strongly against the ongoing lawsuit in Nevada, where the state teachers union and some Clinton backers are trying to shut down the special caucus locations for Las Vegas Strip workers. "If you're shutting people out from the nominating process, you're going to be discouraging people all the way down," Leahy said. "And that's not the approach we want to take in the United States."

John Kerry also came out very strongly against this tactic at TPM Cafe yesterday.

For too many years, American politics has been divided between two types of people: those who want more people to vote, and those who want fewer people to vote. Just last week, the Bush-packed Supreme Court heard oral arguments about the kind of law we’ve become all too familiar with these last years: an Indiana law putting more roadblocks in the way of people who simply want to vote. (Talk about a not so subtle reminder of why some of us filibustered Sam Alito’s nomination two years ago this month.)

Well, it’s troubling to me that now we see another kind of effort to keep people from voting in Nevada. But this time, it’s not the Republicans trying to limit the vote, it’s a fight within our own Party [...]

Here are the details. Last March, the Nevada Democratic Party came together and put together the rules of the caucus. Because of the high number of casino workers in Las Vegas, and because those workers have to work on weekends, the Democrats of Nevada decided to have special, at-large caucus sites in certain select areas (like right on the Vegas Strip) to give those working people a chance to make their voices heard. The Culinary Workers Union, who represents the workers, celebrated the move.

Suddenly, a mere days before the caucus, we now see a lawsuit to shut down those at-large sites and deny the casino workers their right to vote. Three of the plaintiffs voted for the very plan they’re now trying to block – reasonable people have guessed they’re changing their minds presumably because just a few days ago the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Barack Obama.

Here’s the bottom line. I understand people gut it out to win on Election Day. But certain tactics make victory pyrrhic – empty – hollow – and it’s not worth winning if you lose what really counts in the process. And you know what, if the Culinary Workers had backed someone besides my choice in this race - Barack Obama - I’d still say it’s right for every candidate to make sure these workers get to vote.

Many have claimed that the Clinton campaign is not behind this effort by the teacher's union, but the fact that Bill Clinton lost his shit on a news reporter who tried to bring this up should throw some cold water on that suggestion.

Mr. Clinton turned the tables on Mr. Matthews, whom the former president asserted had taken "an accusatory tone" by claiming a link to Mrs. Clinton's operation. "Your position is that you think the Culinary Workers votes should count: A--it should be easier for them to vote than anybody else in Nevada that has to work on Saturday. That's your first position. Second, when they do vote their votes should count five times as much as everybody else. That's what the teachers have questioned. So if that's your position, you have it. Get on your television station and say it.... 'All I care about is making sure that some voters have it easier than others and that when they do vote, when it's already easier for them, their vote should count five times as much as others.' That is your position," Mr. Clinton said. "If you want to take that position, get on the television and take it. Don't be accusatory with me. I have enough to deal with." [...]

At one point during the exchange with the TV reporter, (Oakland) Mayor Ron Dellums tried to physically pull Mr. Clinton away, but the former president held his ground.

I have to say that, of all the misunderstandings and misinterpretations and smears by surrogates and everything in this primary, the concerted strategy of disenfranchisement, a tactic at odds with the core values of the Democratic Party in the 21st century, is the most troubling. This is not a media creation or something blown out of proportion or the result of an emotional reading of the impact of race or gender. This is about the right to vote. The Nevada State Democratic Party set these caucuses up in March. The DNC approved them. The state board approved them. I've been privy to similar processes in the California Democratic Party, and they are a transparent, open, small-d democratic process. If the teacher's union or their representatives in the NSDP wanted to object to this they had ample opportunity to do so nine months ago.

We have to make the right to vote sacrosanct. The defining feature of our political lives in this century is the Florida recount, and the voter suppression tactics used prior to Election Day. Republicans successfully manipulated the vote and mau-maued the media into defusing the controversy. There is no glory in any Democrat using the same tactic to win a primary or a general election.

Barack Obama has given us all pause with his comments about President Reagan (The charitable interpretation is that he's simply building on St. Ronnie's hagiography by trying to get some reflected glory for himself; I don't think good progressives should be legitimizing that false portrait). But Obama has been a stalwart on voting rights; in fact, it's one of the rare moments in his Senate career where he boldly led.

Jane Hamsher is correct that this attack on Obama from the Politico is unfair. The FEC cannot implement the provisions of legislation Obama pushed through because Obama (among others) placed a hold on Hans Von Spakovsky, a horrific pick to be a commissioner of the FEC. Obama has been very good on voting rights, and it's ridiculous to hold him accountable for Bush's propensity to pick as regulators people who don't believe in the mission of the agency they are supposed to run.

Abrogating the right to vote in any form or fashion is not a road that Democrats should ever go down. The Obama campaign hasn't been particularly energizing for progressives, but on this he has it absolutely right, and the teachers are trying to punish his supporters in Nevada simply for being his supporters. That is wrong. And the Clinton campaign shouldn't want to get a victory that way.

Continued Foley Fallout, Over A Year Later

Before we get going on Iowa tonight, I think you should have a look at the depths to which the conservative movement will go to protect their own. Turns out Denny Hastert was paying Mark Foley's legal bills out of his own campaign coffers, and abruptly resigned before the Federal Election Commission smacked him with fines up the yin-yang.

According to FEC documents, Hastert last January initially failed to disclose that legal fees had wiped out the final bit of cash he had in his campaign account. The Illinois Republican and former high school wrestling coach filed an amended finance report in February showing that his '06 campaign had racked up $147,000 in legal expenses in connection with the Foley investigation. In order to avoid substantial fines (and further debt), Hastert quietly agreed last summer to shut down his campaign and pay a $1,000 penalty, the FEC documents show.

The lack of ethics and respect for election law here is unsurprising, but instructive. Why the hell was Denny Hastert paying for these legal bills? They say it was for the "representation of Mr. Hastert in the Foley investigation," but who was investigating him? This was just using one account to cover another, and failing to disclose it.

The Republicans will do absolutely whatever they need to do to win elections. Don't forget that.

Something To Fall Back On

Rudy Giuliani is doing some part-time work in between denunciations of Hillary Clinton.

Ten months into his presidential bid, Rudolph W. Giuliani continues to work part time at the security consulting firm he promised to leave this past spring to focus on his pursuit of the Republican nomination.

I could snark about how someone confident in winning the nomination wouldn't be keeping his old job, or I could joke that he's just keeping it for the health insurance, because buying his own with that pre-existing condition is such a nightmare. But there's actually a serious part to this.

Several of the firm's employees do volunteer work for his campaign. And Giuliani did not decide until mid-June, six months after he entered the race, to bill his campaign for the cost of the security detail traveling with him on campaign trips; before then, the firm paid the expense [...]

Federal election laws prohibit Giuliani's firm from absorbing costs or providing services that legally should be covered by political donations, campaign experts said.

"This is a lawyer's nightmare," said Republican political consultant Scott Reed, who ran the 1996 presidential bid of then-Sen. Robert J. Dole (R-Kan.) but is not aligned with a presidential campaign in this race. "I don't think the vulnerability is with voters on the level of his commitment to the race. The concern is really about FEC violations and whether anything this corporation does to help him essentially is making a contribution to run for president in the form of staff time, materials, travel billing or security."

And since Giuliani clearly believes that the law doesn't apply to him, I don't see him caring much about that. The question is whether or not the FEC will do their job. What's funny is that this is the guy running as a law and order candidate. But he also refuses to give anybody else credit for his achievements, which could explain why he wants to run a campaign and a security firm at the same time. And by running for President the way he ran for mayor, these pieces of petty graft are possibly the best we can hope for:

There is one final matter to consider: Giuliani's claim that what he accomplished in New York is "transferable" to the nation as a whole. Put simply, that idea is impossible, disastrous, or entirely misleading [...] In a recent essay for Foreign Affairs, he wrote: "I know from personal experience that when security is reliably established in a troubled part of a city, normal life rapidly reestablishes itself: shops open, people move back in, children start playing ball on the sidewalks again, and soon a decent and law-abiding
community returns to life. The same is true in world affairs. Disorder in the world's bad neighborhoods tends to spread. Tolerating bad behavior breeds more bad behavior."

This is a foolish analogy. In policing the world, the United States cannot claim to be enforcing its own laws; we lack legitimacy to do so, as we found after invading Iraq. When the nypd went into poor neighborhoods, it was not an occupying force; when the U.S. military took over Baghdad, it was, and it suffered the consequences. Some of the "neighborhoods" Giuliani wants to clean up, such as Iran, possess their own armies and can call on other "neighborhoods," such as Russia and China, to deter an attempt to punish them for bad behavior. In short, the world is not New York writ large, and the trade-offs between authority and liberty look very different from the White House than from Gracie Mansion. But these distinctions seem lost on the man who aspires to be the next mayor of the United States.

Maybe it's good that he's still collecting a paycheck outside of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; it's better than the alternative.

Dirty Tricks Initiative - Giuliani Campaign In Trouble?

A top official of the effort to steal up to 20 electoral votes in California sent out an email to supporters of the Rudy Giuliani campaign asking them to sign petitions to get the measure on the ballot. This could be a violation of federal election law, which prohibits coordination between Presidential campaigns and separate ballot issues. Top of the Ticket has the latest.

The missive, obtained by The Times' Dan Morain, is addressed, "Hello Fellow Rudy Supporter!" Its author, Tony Andrade, is a Republican activist who helped draft the electoral college initiative. Previously, he was among those who helped place the ultimately successful recall of Gov. Gray Davis on the ballot in 2003 [...]

Chris Lehane, a Democratic activist who is organizing the campaign to block the measure, said of the Andrade e-mail: “It sounds like something that the Federal Election Commission and Department of Justice will be very interested in seeing.”

Maria Comella, spokeswoman for Giuliani’s White House bid, previously has stressed that neither he nor his campaign has had anything to do with pushing the ballot initiative.

It's unclear how Andrade would have gotten a list of Giuliani supporters in California without some form of coordination. The initiative's new backers, most of them connected to Giuliani in one way or another, are running from this as fast as possible.

Veteran GOP strategist Ed Rollins, who is overseeing the attempt to put the initiative before voters, distanced himself from Andrade’s note.

“None of us has anything to do with any [presidential] campaign; we understand the law very, very well,” Rollins said. Pledging to try to “make sure that [the e-mail] gets stomped,” Rollins added, “We need to be very sensitive to the fact that people have speculated that this is part of the Giuliani campaign.”

The email included a link to the petition and asks signers to get 10 other people to sign it as well. A campaign confident in their ability to get the necessary signatures wouldn't rely on an email ask, and they certainly wouldn't come this close to violating election law.

This is not the first time that a link has been uncovered between the Giuliani campaign and the dirty tricks initiative. In fact, almost every connection we've seen has gone in this fashion. You'll remember that the first incarnation of the measure was derailed when a murky donation from a shell group in Missouri was eventually traced to Paul Singer, Giuliani's northeast finance director.

These are serious charges, and the Federal Election Commission needs to address them immediately. Steve Benen has more.