Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

McCain’s Camp Tests Fund-Raising Limits

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
briv1016 Donating Member (407 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 01:56 AM
Original message
McCain’s Camp Tests Fund-Raising Limits
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/us/politics/20donate.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

Senator John McCain toiled for years to push a campaign finance overhaul through Congress. After the measure finally passed, Trevor Potter, a lawyer and vigorous advocate for reforming the system, was instrumental in defending the law from challenges and pressing for strict enforcement.

Now, as Mr. McCain makes his final sprint for the White House, Mr. Potter is again helping Mr. McCain, but this time by maneuvering to wring the maximum out of campaign finance laws in ways that some contend are at odds with the spirit of the reforms they championed.

The tactics appear to be legally permissible. And some argue that the McCain campaign is simply doing what is necessary in the face of the record fund-raising by his Democratic rival for president, Senator Barack Obama, and Mr. Obama’s decision to bypass public financing and its attendant spending limits.

But critics point out Mr. McCain is capitalizing on legal loopholes that a watchdog organization headed by Mr. Potter has fought against.

“There are very, very few lawyers in the country that are better at exploiting campaign finance loopholes than Trevor Potter,” said Bradley A. Smith, a former Republican chairman of the Federal Election Commission. “Of course, that’s one of the odd things about the McCain campaign: ‘Here’s the rules we want, but we’ll play by the rules that are here.’ ”

Mr. McCain was an author of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, known as the McCain-Feingold law, an ambitious measure that supporters hoped would help drive big money out of politics. He has also helped sponsor legislation to improve the public financing system for elections and attacked Mr. Obama for backing away from a pledge to participate in it for the general election if his opponent accepted public money as well.

But now, as Mr. McCain’s top legal adviser, Mr. Potter, a former F.E.C. chairman, and his team have been helping the campaign finesse the strict spending limits it faces under public financing. Although Mr. McCain is supposed to be out of the business of private fund-raising after he received his $84 million infusion from the Treasury this month, it is sometimes difficult to tell.

This month, the McCain campaign began running banner Web advertisements asking for donations to the McCain-Palin Compliance Fund, a fund-raising vehicle rooted in a 1980s F.E.C. ruling that candidates who accept public financing can still collect private donations for legal and accounting costs for complying with campaign finance laws.

Only a careful observer, however, would have noticed the advertisements’ fine print, which said donations to the fund would be used to pay for “a portion of the cost of broadcast advertising,” as well as other expenses.

That would seem to be a far cry from the legal and accounting exemption. But the F.E.C. issued an advisory opinion last year that said Senator John Kerry’s presidential campaign could use its compliance fund to cover up to 5 percent of its advertising costs, because of the several seconds candidates must devote in their advertisements to a disclaimer.

The Campaign Legal Center, founded by Mr. Potter, joined with Democracy 21, a watchdog group, to file a strongly worded brief opposing the practice, warning that it would be exploited.

The McCain campaign declined to make Mr. Potter available for an interview. Brian Rogers, a spokesman for the campaign, said in a statement that the campaign had not yet paid for advertising with its compliance fund but “reserves the option to do so under this recent, clear F.E.C. precedent.”

The centerpiece of McCain-Feingold was its efforts to rein in “soft money,” or unregulated contributions, in national elections. But McCain fund-raisers continue to build much of their efforts around the solicitation of large contributions of up to about $70,000 for a special joint fund-raising account for the Republican National Committee and several state parties, which can spend money on behalf of the campaign, called McCain-Palin Victory 2008.

Campaigns have used the joint fund-raising committees in the past, but the McCain campaign took the practice to a new level by linking them with state party accounts, which can accept contributions of $10,000, on top of the $28,500 collected for the national party, $2,300 for the compliance fund and, until recently, $2,300 for the campaign’s primary coffers.

Critics have contended that the large donations to the joint fund-raising accounts amount to a form of soft money. The Obama campaign has been using its own joint fund-raising committee with the Democratic Party, but it only recently created a separate account for the state parties, so the checks are not nearly as big.

“The real irony here,” said Craig Holman, a lobbyist for Public Citizen, a watchdog group, “is we fought so hard to get B.C.R.A. through, McCain-Feingold through, with the whole intent of getting rid of those large donations, which everyone, including McCain, realized were potentially corrupting. And we’ve gone full circle with these large donations for the joint fund-raising committees.”

McCain fund-raisers certainly seem to pitch donations to the victory committee as supporting the ticket. The McCain campaign Web site attracts donors with a prominent “Contribute” button that sends them to a donation page for the committee, along with some lengthy disclaimers of the various entities that benefit from it.

By contrast, the Kerry campaign’s contribution button on its Web page in 2004 was more clearly labeled “Contribute to the Democratic Party.” The Obama campaign is not soliciting contributions for its joint fund-raising committee on its Web site.

Some lawyers said that some of the ways the McCain campaign is pushing its victory committee fit awkwardly with the broader mandate of public financing to halt private fund-raising, as well as rules that ban the designating of funds to party committees for specific candidates.

“I think it’s both an appearance and a legal question,” said Lawrence H. Norton, who left his post as general counsel to the F.E.C. last year.

But Mr. Rogers pointed to explanatory language used in literature by the joint fund-raising committees and said they undertook “substantial efforts to avoid any potential misunderstanding.”

Mr. Potter built his reputation as an activist while he was F.E.C. chairman in the 1990s and later founded his reform-minded legal center. He took a leave this year from his position as president to devote himself to being the McCain campaign’s general counsel while also still maintaining a private practice.

Guided by Mr. Potter, the McCain campaign is also adopting one of the most controversial innovations introduced by the Bush campaign in 2004: the use of so-called hybrid advertisements, which allowed it to split the cost of television commercials with the Republican Party. The practice was later copied by the Democrats.

The F.E.C. deadlocked on the legality of the advertisements last year, paving the way for the McCain campaign to rely heavily on them. But Mr. Potter’s Campaign Legal Center joined Democracy 21 last year in a vigorous objection to the practice, labeling it a “scheme to evade the spending limits.”

Some election law lawyers speculated that the McCain campaign might push the envelope further and try to split the costs of its hybrid advertisements with state parties as well, or produce some advertisements in which the party picks up more of the cost.

Mr. Rogers said the campaign had no plans to change the 50-50 ratio for dividing the advertising costs but declined to comment on the state parties question.

Mr. Rogers said Mr. McCain’s detractors often insinuated that because of his reformist reputation “almost anything he does to raise or spend money is a violation of his principles.”

But Mr. Rogers said the campaign was complying with all laws.

Indeed, some lawyers argued that Mr. Potter and Mr. McCain were simply dealing with the realities of a close race.

“They’re taking full advantage of opportunities the law provides for them,” said Robert D. Lenhard, a former Democratic F.E.C. chairman.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlueManDude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 04:41 AM
Response to Original message
1. they'll break the law and pay fines later.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidpdx Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 05:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. And the icing on the cake is they'll use the money from RNC
donors to pay the fines.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krkaufman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-20-08 06:40 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. Exactly. I have no doubt that they'll break many laws ...
... and will worry about the penalties later. It's not like any of the punishments are immediate forfeiture of the election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 06:23 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC