FEC to Audit McCain but Not Obama
By Alan Stewart Carl | Related entries in 2008 Election, Barack, McCain, Money
If you need any more proof that our campaign finance laws are a joke, take this story:
The Federal Election Commission is unlikely to conduct a potentially embarrassing audit of how Barack Obama raised and spent his presidential campaign’s record-shattering windfall, despite allegations of questionable donations and accounting that had the McCain campaign crying foul.
Adding insult to injury for Republicans: The FEC is obligated to complete a rigorous audit of McCain’s campaign coffers, which will take months, if not years, and cost McCain millions of dollars to defend.
The FEC has the authority to audit the Obama campaign but, because he opted out of the $84 million public grant, the board would have to vote on conducting an audit and such votes almost always end in gridlock, especially if they involve a sitting president. The McCain audit, on the other hand, is a mandatory aspect of accepting the funds.
So, Obama does a 180 on the need for public financing and not only does that maneuver allow him to raise a ridiculous sum of money, but it inoculates him from any outside oversight. Nice.
Maybe when McCain returns to the Senate he can once again tackle campaign finance laws. He might bring a clearer idea of how those laws work in the real world.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, November 11th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Barack, McCain, Money. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
This rule does seem backwards. Shouldn’t we want to know more about private funds than public ones?
November 11th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Unfair. Period.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Yep, this sounds about right. Pretty unbelievable, but not really surprising when you consider all of the other Obama questions that have been swept under the rug. I guess that’s what McCain gets for not going ‘maverick’ on his funding.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Shouldn’t we want to know more about private funds than public ones?
I’d say no. Taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, which is why oversight in government, and organizations the government funds, is so important. On the private side, it is up to the people who are directly funding the entity to demand oversight.
That said, given the amount of money involved, and Obama’s promise of a more open and accountable way of doing business, his books should definitely be audited as well.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Suck on it Republicans.
When Democrats use the rules to wipe the floor with you, you cry foul. If Republicans do it, it’s good politics. That’s why you lost. Always crying about how unfair everything is. Most people realize it’s the Republicans that are the crooked ones, so that’s why you are in the political wilderness.
John McCain sought public financing in the primaries, secured a loan to resuscitate his losing campaign using that as collateral, and then illegally opted out of the public financing. The only reason he was able to finance his primary campaign with all those donor contributions is because the Bushies refused to properly staff the FEC so that the complaints could be addressed. So I don’t want to hear anyone imply that Obama did anything wrong because he’s not being audited, when there is proof that McCain illegally financed his campaign.
But in the Republican world, suggesting impropriety against an opponent carries more weight than actual impropriety by their own party.
This public/private financing of the presidential campaigns faux outrage was a losing issue during the race, and it continues to be one for you now. Seek your campaign finance reform, but maybe this time have someone other than McCain sponsor it, since he has a problem actually supporting any of his “reforms” such as this or his immigration reform if it’s not politically expedient.
November 11th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
How stupid is it to allow Wall Street to police itself? Pretty stupid, right?
Well, our election system has politicians police themselves. How is that not equally stupid? Actually, how is that not MORE stupid because there is no potential oversight?
Ed, is there any law the Democrats could break that you WOULD get mad about? If not you are no democrat (notice the lower cass “d”.)
November 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Yeah, I’m inclined to agree with the previous commenters. This doesn’t seem right.
November 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
So, in other words, Obama is a genius tactician.
Good news for us.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Hmmm….part of campaign finance oversight is where money comes from and where money goes. Anything wrong with automatically auditing both campaigns after a Presidential run, regardless of public or private funding? To think otherwise smacks of letting ideology cloud common sense.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Once again, McCain is the victim of his bad legislation.
November 11th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
I’m not sure why folks are blaming Obama for this. These are the rules, and they were passed by a bipartisan vote. Nobody likes being audited – it’s time consuming and expensive, and if the agreed-upon rules end up saying Obama doesn’t have to be audited, then that’s how it goes. That’s not Obama’s fault.
I guess I find it a bit disingenuous for Republicans to be complaining about this. McCain was the co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold Act, and if he felt that this system was unfair he ought to have changed it when he wrote that act.
Look guys, the time to game the referees is over. Let’s assume your crazy theories are right and $12 million bucks were donated by foreigners. Well, that’s only 2% of the money he raised. Regular Americans donated the vast majority of his campaign money, and even if the out-there theories are right, the truth is that the overwhelming majority of his money was given by ordinary Americans like myself.
Regardless of any small irregularities, Obama simply out-raised McCain. The Republicans in prior years have never seemed to have a problem with outspending Democrats, so please don’t feign offense now.
Your candidate ran a poor campaign and had a vague and rapidly changing message. He lost because he was the worse candidate. Folks are tired of scare tactics and rumor mongering and red-baiting and personal attacks. People want hope for the future and leadership, not innuendo and McCarthyism. The GOP lost because its message is narrow, divisive, and out of touch. The sooner you guys realize that the sooner you can start winning elections again.
Look, I’m not against McCain. I actually liked the guy a lot back when he was himself and wasn’t trying to be something that appealed to the old, white, evangelical base. The McCain of the concession speech is a guy I could have voted for.
But here’s the reality. The GOP is now the party of old white Southern men. It needs to change that. It needs to start being inclusive of Latinos (stop already with the immigration hate), Blacks, Gays (yep), the poor, the middle class, people who aren’t zealots, and women. Until you kick the Sarah Palins and the Jerry Falwells of the world out of your party (or at least shut them up) you’re going to be the minority.
So anyway, stop making this out to be an Obama thing. If you don’t like the way the campaign finance laws work, talk to McCain about it. But what you really ought to do is take a long hard look in the mirror and figure out how the GOP can be representative of the America of today again. I personally hope it can be, as I think it’s important to have both sides equally represented and I think the GOP can have a lot to offer once it gets rid of the idiots that are currently running it (and the fringe groups that currently support it).
November 11th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
@ BJ, I meant shouldn’t we want to know where private funds for a Presidential campaigns come from? Perhaps I’m following a Republican line of attack here (but to me this is not a partisan issue). Shouldn’t the funding of a Presidential election be completely transparent, both on the sourcing side and the spending side regardless of whether a candidate opts for public or private sources? No brainer to me. And to my mind, the sources of private funds should be under higher scrutiny, and the spending should be under no less scrutiny. It’s only the sanctity of our democracy that’s at stake.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
First of all, every campaign should have a least a small, low-scale audit. It should be standard operating procedure.
Frankly, I’d like to see Obama audited. Somehow, I doubt there exists an adequate number of crows to stuff down the pie holes of all those screaming for this audit.
Who, exactly, is demanding this audit, anyway?
Perhaps the same folks that demanded a valid birth certificate?
Perhaps the same folks that denounced Obama as a Muslim?
Perhaps the same folks that said they had a tape of Michelle Obama ranting against “Whitey?”
Perhaps the same folks that said, “Look! He doesn’t put his hand over his heart when he should! What a traitor!”
Perhaps the same folks that said, “His pastor said WHAT?!?!?”
Yeah. Uh-huh.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
November 11th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Jeffrey W Says
I couldn’t have said it better, Jeffrey.
That McCain would’ve chosen Joe Lieberman as a running mate–not some Caribou Barbie that he only first met six months ago.
November 11th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
This isn’t about whether or not McCain won the election…. and it is not Republicans being whiny. It is an article that was written, and we are simply commenting that we think it seems unfair… and it isn’t just foreign contributions it’s the businesses, lobbyists , and other that SAID they were just plain simple people like yourself so they can get around the contribution limits, which is why Obama elected to not use public financing after he promised to do so… snaky snake that he is!
November 12th, 2008 at 8:28 am
hainan57 speculates:
Speculation. Hearsay. Rumormongering.
But yes, I agree, let’s audit. The millions spent on an audit would be worth it to prove you wrong, I think. ;)
–Ag
November 12th, 2008 at 11:29 am
I think that it is totally unfair how the press portrayed McCain during the election. They constantly looked over many subjects that rose serious questions about Obama’s view, but instead focused on certain matters that are not important .. Like the price of the clothes that were spent. Barack spent 10 times as much on 30 minute comericals aired during prime time.
I believe that McCain was a victim of Liberal press.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:33 am
I think that Obama’s tax plan will destroy the economy even further. The capital gains tax is unfair and will only push private investors out, therefore destroying the stock market.
It is quite evident that Obama didn’t major in economics in college, much less even take an economic class.
November 12th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
you guys can THINK there should be an audit, but that is not how it works.
I THINK McCain and his wife should have disclosed their tax returns, I THINK McCain should disclose how he vetted Palin. That doesn’t mean there is a mechanism for this to happen.
Please include a link where he promised to not use public funding.
That carries about as much weight as me deciding what NASA’s next mission should be.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:08 am
Campaign finance reform is needed on all levels. But if I had to pick one person to receive an audit, I would pick the person who received the public money, because that is coming out of my pocket directly.
December 22nd, 2008 at 10:30 am
I agree with what rob says. We can think all we want, but unfortunately we are not the ones deciding who gets to do what.