Answers from Ruth Marcus at WaPo
Those of you who read my article on the WaPo op-ed by Ruth Marcus that talked about Obama's 'flip-flop' on campaign financing will be interested to see the answer I got, and a few followup questions from other readers, along with her answers.
\
First, my question along with Marcus' answer:
Sherman, Texas: In your op-ed on "flip-flops" by the presidential candidates, how did you manage to ignore that McCain violated the law by taking a loan on the basis of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing plan, then not doing as he said he would in order to gain that loan?
washingtonpost.com: When a Flip Isn't a Flop (Post, July 2)
Ruth Marcus: Fair question. We have editorialized about Sen. McCain and the primary matching funds, and I'm glad that we now have a Federal Election Commission that has confirmed commissioners and can look at this issue. But whether or not you consider Sen. McCain's loan having been impermissably been based on the collateral of expected matching funds, I don't think that fits into the flip-flop category.
A followup question from a reader:
Re: Flip-Flops: You write "But whether or not you consider Sen. McCain's loan having been impermissably been based on the collateral of expected matching funds, I don't think that fits into the flip-flop category." So you're saying that breaking a law that McCain himself wrote is not "flip-flopping"?
Ruth Marcus: Sorry, Sen. McCain didn't write that law, but leaving that aside: I'm saying the issue of whether he was or was not permitted to withdraw from the matching funds system is different from the question of whether he flip-flopped.
Ruth Marcus took a further question about campaign financing:
Re: Campaign Financing: Leaving aside the question of legality, how is it not a flip-flop for McCain to opt out of public financing for the primary, given that he is probably the most visible proponent of public financing in the entire country? Forgive me for saying this, but I think you're just as easy on McCain as Chris Matthews and the rest.
Ruth Marcus: Well, let me quote myself, if you don't mind, in my own defense to the Ruth=Chris Matthews charge.
This is from last week's column. Of all the flip-flops of campaign 2008, McCain's reversal on taxes may be the most disturbing, because it represents a stark turnabout on a key issue. But the important aspect is not that McCain changed his position -- it's that his "no new taxes" incarnation is so recklessly wrong. Still, it's a lot simpler to yell "flip-flop" in a crowded blogosphere than to hunker down with a set of distribution tables.
In addition, here's a link to our editorial about Sen. McCain and the matching funds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901440.html
The most relevant part:
Second, and more problematic, is the question of whether Mr. McCain used his eligibility for matching funds as collateral for a $4 million loan; if so, Mr. McCain would be deemed to have used the matching fund program to his financial advantage, even without having received any money, and so would be bound by the spending limits. Mr. McCain didn't directly pledge the expected matching funds as security, but he did promise that if his campaign went badly, he would stay in the race and seek matching funds in order to be able to repay the bank. The McCain campaign and the bank say that this does not rise to the level of using the FEC certification as collateral for the loan and that they were careful to avoid that trap. The DNC has filed a complaint with the FEC asserting that it does rise to such a level and that Mr. McCain is therefore stuck in the matching funds system. However the loan terms are understood, this is not Mr. McCain's proudest moment as a reformer: He derived some benefit from the matching funds system and then abandoned it when that was to his advantage.
Another reader from the homestate;
Bellingham, Wash.: On the subject of "flip-flopping": I've just finished an article about Rush Limbaugh in an um, rival Sunday newspaper's magazine, and thank God Obama "flip-flopped" on accepting public financing. The reporting I've seen on the subject often mentions that Obama was overreacting because Republican 527's were not organizing a coordinated attack on his campaign, but I've always thought the real threat was from the free attacks offered by Limbaugh et al on cable and AM radio. Obama will need all the help and money he can get to counter the three to six hours a day of free, high-wattage AM radio Republican attack ads that Limbaugh will be offering from now until November.
Ruth Marcus: Except that Sen. Obama probably knew about Rush Limbaugh when he originally said he'd try to take public financing.
(Incidentally, he was still running against Hillary Clinton when he made the commitment, and most of the vitriol was aimed at her. Also, McCain had not yet retreated from his own commitment, as I recall.)
From February 15, MyDD: see http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/15/193936/719
"Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
\
First, my question along with Marcus' answer:
Sherman, Texas: In your op-ed on "flip-flops" by the presidential candidates, how did you manage to ignore that McCain violated the law by taking a loan on the basis of the McCain-Feingold campaign financing plan, then not doing as he said he would in order to gain that loan?
washingtonpost.com: When a Flip Isn't a Flop (Post, July 2)
Ruth Marcus: Fair question. We have editorialized about Sen. McCain and the primary matching funds, and I'm glad that we now have a Federal Election Commission that has confirmed commissioners and can look at this issue. But whether or not you consider Sen. McCain's loan having been impermissably been based on the collateral of expected matching funds, I don't think that fits into the flip-flop category.
A followup question from a reader:
Re: Flip-Flops: You write "But whether or not you consider Sen. McCain's loan having been impermissably been based on the collateral of expected matching funds, I don't think that fits into the flip-flop category." So you're saying that breaking a law that McCain himself wrote is not "flip-flopping"?
Ruth Marcus: Sorry, Sen. McCain didn't write that law, but leaving that aside: I'm saying the issue of whether he was or was not permitted to withdraw from the matching funds system is different from the question of whether he flip-flopped.
Ruth Marcus took a further question about campaign financing:
Re: Campaign Financing: Leaving aside the question of legality, how is it not a flip-flop for McCain to opt out of public financing for the primary, given that he is probably the most visible proponent of public financing in the entire country? Forgive me for saying this, but I think you're just as easy on McCain as Chris Matthews and the rest.
Ruth Marcus: Well, let me quote myself, if you don't mind, in my own defense to the Ruth=Chris Matthews charge.
This is from last week's column. Of all the flip-flops of campaign 2008, McCain's reversal on taxes may be the most disturbing, because it represents a stark turnabout on a key issue. But the important aspect is not that McCain changed his position -- it's that his "no new taxes" incarnation is so recklessly wrong. Still, it's a lot simpler to yell "flip-flop" in a crowded blogosphere than to hunker down with a set of distribution tables.
In addition, here's a link to our editorial about Sen. McCain and the matching funds:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/09/AR2008030901440.html
The most relevant part:
Second, and more problematic, is the question of whether Mr. McCain used his eligibility for matching funds as collateral for a $4 million loan; if so, Mr. McCain would be deemed to have used the matching fund program to his financial advantage, even without having received any money, and so would be bound by the spending limits. Mr. McCain didn't directly pledge the expected matching funds as security, but he did promise that if his campaign went badly, he would stay in the race and seek matching funds in order to be able to repay the bank. The McCain campaign and the bank say that this does not rise to the level of using the FEC certification as collateral for the loan and that they were careful to avoid that trap. The DNC has filed a complaint with the FEC asserting that it does rise to such a level and that Mr. McCain is therefore stuck in the matching funds system. However the loan terms are understood, this is not Mr. McCain's proudest moment as a reformer: He derived some benefit from the matching funds system and then abandoned it when that was to his advantage.
Another reader from the homestate;
Bellingham, Wash.: On the subject of "flip-flopping": I've just finished an article about Rush Limbaugh in an um, rival Sunday newspaper's magazine, and thank God Obama "flip-flopped" on accepting public financing. The reporting I've seen on the subject often mentions that Obama was overreacting because Republican 527's were not organizing a coordinated attack on his campaign, but I've always thought the real threat was from the free attacks offered by Limbaugh et al on cable and AM radio. Obama will need all the help and money he can get to counter the three to six hours a day of free, high-wattage AM radio Republican attack ads that Limbaugh will be offering from now until November.
Ruth Marcus: Except that Sen. Obama probably knew about Rush Limbaugh when he originally said he'd try to take public financing.
(Incidentally, he was still running against Hillary Clinton when he made the commitment, and most of the vitriol was aimed at her. Also, McCain had not yet retreated from his own commitment, as I recall.)
From February 15, MyDD: see http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/15/193936/719
"Senator John McCain has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."
Labels: Campaign Financing, Election 2008, Republican Lying, the Press
posted by Ruth at 10:40 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home