The official blog of the Libertarian Party
February 12, 2007
McCain: Campaign Finance Reform Hypocrite?
WaPo is reporting that John McCain, father of the McCain-Feingold Incumbancy Protection Racket, is now taking money for his presidential race that he once condemned others for accepting:
Just about a year and a half ago, Sen. John McCain went to court to try to curtail the influence of a group to which A. Jerrold Perenchio gave $9 million, saying it was trying to "evade and violate" new campaign laws with voter ads ahead of the midterm elections.
As McCain launches his own presidential campaign, however, he is counting on Perenchio, the founder of the Univision Spanish-language media empire, to raise millions of dollars as co-chairman of the Arizona Republican's national finance committee.
In his early efforts to secure the support of the Republican establishment he has frequently bucked, McCain has embraced some of the same political-money figures, forces and tactics he pilloried during a 15-year crusade to reduce the influence of big donors, fundraisers and lobbyists in elections. That includes enlisting the support of Washington lobbyists as well as key players in the fundraising machine that helped President Bush defeat McCain in the 2000 Republican primaries.
According to CNN, McCain isn't very happy about the WaPo article:
Sen. John McCain blasted a report in the Washington Post that said the Arizona Republican, who has campaigned against the use of "soft money," is using just those kinds of funds to support his GOP presidential nomination.
McCain told CNN the article is "worst hit job that has ever been done in my entire political career."
According to the story published on Sunday, campaign and IRS records show several of McCain's finance co-chairmen "have given or raised large donations for political parties or 527 groups."
While I strongly believe that one should be able to give a campaign as much money as he or she likes, it is sort of fun watching the man who tried to bankrupt the LP squirm a little bit.
Posted by Stephen Gordon at February 12, 2007 01:48 PM
Reader Comments:
All laws should be written, considered and voted on as if they will someday apply, personally, to us.
Even if you don't think it can happen to you, one should practice the Golden Rule of politics and not impose government on others.
Apparently McCain is well versed in the meaning of "priviledge". It's a direct translation from the Latin, meaning "private law". One rule for all of YOU poor slobs, but that same rule doesn't apply to ME.
Alas, I can't say this surprises me in a national level politician of ANY party. As long as no one ever proposes a law to stop *himself* from doing something he knows he shouldn't do, I don't expect that trend to change either. It's built into human nature, I suspect.
Of course the whole problem is the government regulating this in the first place. Political campaigns are one of the foundations of democracy. Free speech - while protecting all kinds of speech - was meant to especially protect political speech. Limiting how much a person spends, who they spend it on and how they spend it is abridging their right to speak on political issues.
I personally don't have enough money to buy a TV ad expressing my point of view on something. However if I band together with a like-minded group of people (like Libertarians maybe?) together we can. We should each be able to give as much as we choose.
Having the government regulate political speech in anyway is a scary thing. McCain-Feingold does this in ways that have nothing to do with money either. The provision prohibiting electioneering so many days before the election is absurd. Most voters (despite extended media frenzies) don't make up their mind until the last weeks or days of an election.
Just like with taxes more regulations just ends up meaning more underhanded ways of hiding the money. Tax regulation leads businesses to use tax shelters and other ways of hiding money instead of investing it. Regulating campaign donations leads to less transparency of who pays for a candidates campaign not more. People try to circumvent the laws through sneaky ways.
Some examples from my home state of Michigan. Dick DeVos was the republican candidate for governor. He owns Amway (a company that sells cleaning products among other things). I had never in my life seen an Amway commercial on TV until the governor's race. The commercial wasn't just about the superiority of their product (in fact that was hardly mentioned) it was more about what Amway does for its employees, etc. With job losses a HUGE issue in the Michigan campaign this was clearly a way to make DeVos look good.
The other side wasn't to be outdone. Senator Debbie Stabenow in one of her campaign ads had someone talking about how he lost his job to a company in China. Just previous to this ad Jennifer Granholm, the democratic candidate for governor, had attacked DeVos because of factories his company opened in China. Was it coincidence that Stabenow's ad about outsourcing just happened to mention China? If you believe that I've got a bridge in Mackinac I want to sell you.
John B., you don't happen to live in Warren, do you? I am running for City Council and can use all the votes I can get.
http://hyper2.com/election
Sorry, Jim. I don't live in Warren. I live in Battle Creek. My attempts to get in touch with the local party here have been unsuccessful. I too, would like to run for local office.
Does anybody still believe his moderate conservative facade anymore? He showed genuine promise in 2000, but today, he stands before us a neo-con, ready to carry on Bush II's "legacy." Its just sad.
Since McCain can't follow his own law, I believe he's well on his way to defeat. That's great for America, since that means that it won't be a Neo-Con versus Socialized Medicine. Hopefully the GOP has enough sense to not give McCain the nomination. After all, none of us want Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama as president.
Maybe that'll help pave the way for Ron Paul to become the other frontrunner alongside Rudy Giuliani. Then we'd have the 2 most Libertarian candidates (according to some site which Nolan Charted all candidates based on their positions) from the big 2 parties fighting for the GOP nomination. The coup of 06 may work to perfection in 08.
Maybe our next president may truly believe in the rights to life, liberty, and property after all.
If we hold those clay feet to the fire, we might at least get some nice ceramic pieces out of Mr. McCain. I wonder what they'd fetch on EBay?
Giuliani a ibertarian? Don't make me cough!
I have a dilemma regarding Ron Paul. What if he WERE to earn the GOP nomination? Would Libertarians vote for him because he stands a REASONABLE chance to be elected? Wouldn't that split the LIBERTARIAN vote? Or would we, as a party, not run a candidate and back Paul?
Next question: assume Paul does NOT get the GOP nomination and both Rs and Ds field bad choices. Could Paul, who is a current Republican congressman accept the Libertarian nomination? Would his position as a Republican exclude him as a Libertarian? Would his acceptance of a Libertarian nomination conflict with his current Republican membership?
Last Question: assume Rs and Ds both present horrible choices: Stalin and Marx for example. Could the Libertarian Party raise enough money to mount a truly viable campaign? I don't think the next president will be Republican, Bush has just done too much harm. I think Clinton and Obama both have low chances to be elected. In my lifetime, 2008 is the Libertarian's best chance at the presidency.
I have to agree with a comment made earlier: Rudy Giuliani as anything but the embodiment of libertarian idyl. Period. The man is as authoritarian as they come! Just ask ANYONE who remembers his "pre-9/11" record.
Neither Obama nor Clinton will be the next POTUS. What you have to worry about is Romney.
That man scares me.
I have my reasons for voting against Romney, but his religion is the least of my worries.
Can't we just give McCain back to the Vietnamees?
The Vietnamese won't take him.
Once McCain started to court the nutball right "base" it became clearly apparent he is a self serving opportunist, not a principled politician. Of course, anyone who had paid attention to his pronouncements on Iraq would have already been rid of that illusion.
It's strange is that John McCain might actually have a chance at winning the G.O.P. nomination.
NEWT GINGRICH (if he decides to run), JOHN COX, and RUDY GIULIANI will most likely split the neocon vote. Although, Giuliani will also have the support of liberal Republicans.
JOHN McCAIN and CHUCK HAGEL (if he runs) are likely to split the votes of moderate Republicans.
MITT ROMNEY, TOMMY THOMPSON, and JIM GLIMORE are question marks.
SAM BROWNBACK and MIKE HUCKABEE will split the Religious Right and social conservative vote.
DUNCAN HUNTER seems like the only one who could gain votes from neocons and social conservatives.
And TOM TANCREDO and RONALD PAUL will split the votes of fiscal conservatives, states rights supporters, and traditional conservatives. However, Ronald Paul will have a monopoly on the libertarian vote.
If Ronald Paul doesn't win the G.O.P. nomination, then I would like to see a massive walk-out in protest by the fiscal conservatives, states rights supporters, traditional conservatives, and libertarians at the Republican National Convention. Then again, it's wishful thinking.
Speaking of hypocrites, isn't it interesting that Bob Barr wrote an article about privacy? Isn't the drug war a massive invasion of privacy, restricting what people put into their own bodies? I would be interested to learn if Mr. Barr has changed his mind on the drug war since joining this party. I hope his circle of friends in the LP have been successful in convincing him of the errors of his past transgressions. I appreciate his article, but only if he practices what he preaches.
As for McCain, do Republicans even support him? Is he being backed financially only because he has name recognition, meaning he may have a chance with the voters and the backers just want to be sure they have a friend if he wins?
Nick:
Barr's coming along in our direction slowly. So far he has come out in support of states rights on medical marijuana. I hope he'll keep moving in our direction on the drug issue.
McCain is a fascist sleazebag, and always has been.
"I have a dilemma regarding Ron Paul. What if he WERE to earn the GOP nomination? Would Libertarians vote for him because he stands a REASONABLE chance to be elected? Wouldn't that split the LIBERTARIAN vote? Or would we, as a party, not run a candidate and back Paul?"
Ron Paul has zero chance of getting the Republican nomination. He is about as likely to be the Republican nominee as Dennis Kucinich
is to be the Democratic nominee.
Ron Paul has about as much chance of getting the Republican nomination as the LP candidate has of winning the general election.
That's too bad, because he is a lot more libertarian than the other Republicans, but it's also true.
If he did somehow win the Republican nomination, which would not happen, Hillary would cream him. She would attack him from the right on drugs, and from the left on social spending and entitlements, and that would be the end of that.
But, it wouldn't get to that, since the other Republicans will do that for her in the primaries.
Best bet for Ron Paul to get himself noticed and get some votes is introducing Bush-Cheney impeachment in Congress.
http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/02/15/will-ron-paul-introduce-an-impeachment-resolution-in-congress/
I think it would be a great move to distinguish himself from the other candidates in the race.
There are quite a few Republicans who are POed at what Bush is doing to this country, and many states have open primaries where non-Republicans can vote. There is also still plenty of time for people to register as Republicans in order to vote for him.
It would get him all over the news, and make him a huge story, raising his profile considerably.
He’s already not likely to get a lot of votes from warmongers, being a solidly antiwar candidate. Among antiwar Republicans, I think introducing impeachment in Congress would gain him more votes than it would lose him - and that doesn’t even count all the people who would vote in the primary for him just because of that.
"Next question: assume Paul does NOT get the GOP nomination and both Rs and Ds field bad choices. Could Paul, who is a current Republican congressman accept the Libertarian nomination? Would his position as a Republican exclude him as a Libertarian? Would his acceptance of a Libertarian nomination conflict with his current Republican membership?"
There is no guarantee he would want to run third party, or if he does, *which* third party (might go Constitution party this time). As of this time, he has said that he will NOT run third party but will instead run for Congress again.
If Libertarians focus all their energy on the Ron Paul primary race rather than the LP candidates now running for our nomination, whoever the LP candidate will be in the end - which will probably not be Ron Paul - will be weaker as a result.
I also don't think he is the best candidate for the Libertarian nomination should he change his mind and decide to pursue it; but that is a separate question, and at the moment I will take Dr. Paul at his word and take it as a given that he is not interested in the Libertarian nomination.
"Last Question: assume Rs and Ds both present horrible choices: Stalin and Marx for example. Could the Libertarian Party raise enough money to mount a truly viable campaign? I don't think the next president will be Republican, Bush has just done too much harm. I think Clinton and Obama both have low chances to be elected. In my lifetime, 2008 is the Libertarian's best chance at the presidency."
It's very highly unlikely that we could win the Presidency or come anywhere close. That's unfortunate, but it's also true. Just because we
find candidates like Clinton, Obama and McCain to be horrible choices does not mean the rest of the country will. Most Americans are not libertarians.
I sit here nodding, but without an inspiring plan.
Maybe we need to nominate someone like George Carlin. I think he would stand a better chance to get elected than I would. I saw a list of celebrity Libertarians somewhere, hmmm. If Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Jessie Ventura, and Arnold Schwarzeneger and pull off big elections, why not try someone with built-in name recognition?
Coach Jim,
Steve Kubby is the best announced choice at the moment.
http://kubby2008.com/
The website is not very good right now - we need a real webmaster (anyone interested?) but that can be fixed as we get better organized.
Kubby has a very inspiring personal story.
He is by far the longest survivor with his type of adrenal cancer, published a leading ski magazine,
helped popularize Lake Tahoe as a vacation destination, and played an instrumental role in writing and passing California's Prop 215 (medical marijuana) which led to all the other medical marijuana initiatives that have passed, and all the ones that have yet to pass.
By the way, that is an issue with solid majority approval by the general public in every region of the country.
Of all the candidates running for President, he is the only one who has actually played a major role in passing laws which expanded our freedom rather than shrink it.
Steve is a long-time Libertarian and was the LP candidate for Governor of California in 1998.
His campaign produced the South Park ads which won a pollie award - the political advertising equivalent of an Oscar - for the first time ever for a Libertarian.
We are currently raising funds to produce a Presidential campaign version of the ad; contributors can star in the commercial, which will have a 3-minute web version and a 30-second TV version.
If you go to the website click on "about Steve" in the top right to find out more about Steve.
We need a real campaign manager. I'm filling in, but I'm not an experienced campaign manager - we need a real one.
We need help with every aspect of the campaign, badly.
Click on the "contribute" and "volunteer" links if you can help in any way, big or small!
Paulie -- you know, your words here are convincing.
And you know that I don't always -- hell, usually I *don't* -- agree with you.
Says something. I know the Kubby story's recent history but I haven't investigated the man.
I think I shall.
Ian, I think the extent to which we disagree might be overamplified by the medium in which we communicate.
The anarchist vs. minarchist debate, alternate theories of the events of 9/11, and such, matters in one context, but no so much in the context of party outreach and building. Compared to most people vs. us, the differences between me and you are extremely trivial. Saying we disagree most of the time is probably a gross exageration.
I do believe there is a need for inreach - internal education among libertarians to understand our own ideology better - but there's a much greater need for outreach, to reach the general public. We need both, but especially the second one!
Let's put it this way. I score 100/100 on the World's smallest political quiz. I am assuming you score well above 50/50 since you are here. So is it really accurate to say we disagree most of the time? I think not.
Depending on how it's worded I score at either 90/100 (or 100/90) or 100/100. So yeah. I hear you on the communication medium bit, although I *do* have to say: there's a reason I don't attend my local meetings.
The WLA is WAY to strong around here, and those people could get their a**es out of their a**es if they tried; let alone get their heads out!
I find that World's Smallest Political Quiz to more than a bit slanted. All the questions are from a Libertarian point of view and you are asked to agree or disagree. I reworked the questions a little instead of agreeing or disagreeing it presented different sides of the argument. Try it out - I would welcome any feedback you might have.
http://hyper2.com/essays/quiz.html
I will take a peek Coach Jim.
I would suggest everybody take the quiz at http://www.mises.org If you score 100%, nobody will ever be able to impeach your libertarian economic views.
| 
All laws should be written, considered and voted on as if they will someday apply, personally, to us.
Even if you don't think it can happen to you, one should practice the Golden Rule of politics and not impose government on others.
Posted by: Sandra at February 12, 2007 05:49 PM