John McCain is in court?

[Dari]

This is the first time I've heard of our glorious war hero in court over finance reform. Says quite a lot about him and the law he created.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/...ending_unlawfully.html

Plouffe: McCain spending 'unlawfully'

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.

The details of the argument over whether McCain used an acceptable or unacceptable loophole to secure a loan with the possibility of public financing is now before a court in a DNC lawsuit and subject to the FEC's consideration.

"John McCain signed his name, 'John McCain," Ploufe said. "He got on the ballot attesting he would be in the primary system."

"They?re out there throwing stones in glass houses on this," he said of McCain's attacks on Obama on public financing.

 

[nageov3t]

this could be the most ridiculous thing in the history of politics.

the democrats had a complaint about John McCain... they attempted to take him to court, and the court said "let the FEC rule on it, come back in a couple months if they don't."

except -- wait for it -- the FEC can't rule on it because the democrats are filibustering any FEC nomination that would bring them up to a sufficient number to hold a quorum.

 

[polarmystery]

I'm a dem myself, but the source seems pretty biased. Can you post up any other sources or links confirming this one? Seems a little odd. Let's play on equal ground now.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481
this could be the most ridiculous thing in the history of politics.

the democrats had a complaint about John McCain... they attempted to take him to court, and the court said "let the FEC rule on it, come back in a couple months if they don't."

except -- wait for it -- the FEC can't rule on it because the democrats are filibustering any FEC nomination that would bring them up to a sufficient number to hold a quorum.

Is it or isn't it still before the court?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Dari
-snip-
Says quite a lot about him and the law he created.

At this point all it says is that "anyone can sue anybody for anything in the USA". At least until the courts say the case has merits.

I thought the big deal was the allegation McCain used public financing to get a loan, but I've heard several times it ain't so. Even from the bank itself.

I doubt this will go anywhere. And the FEC can't consider anything, and Obama is one of those filibustering new appointments.

Fern

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Dari

Is it or isn't it still before the court?

my understanding is that John McCain appealed to the FEC regarding public financing, except the FEC couldn't rule on his appeal one way or the other because (again) the democrats are filibustering any FEC nomination that would bring their numbers up to the point where they could hold a quorum. with a non-functioning FEC, he decided to do what he wanted to do, which the FEC probably would have ruled in his favor on if democrats weren't filibustering nominations.

so the DNC sued the McCain campaign, and in the original suit, they were told to give the FEC X amount of time to come to a decision before pursuing it further. the deadline for the FEC to come to a decision was either yesterday or today, and lo and behold, they haven't -- BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE FILIBUSTERING FEC NOMINATIONS that would allow them to be a functioning body.

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dari

Is it or isn't it still before the court?

my understanding is that John McCain appealed to the FEC regarding public financing, except the FEC couldn't rule on his appeal one way or the other because (again) the democrats are filibustering any FEC nomination that would bring their numbers up to the point where they could hold a quorum. with a non-functioning FEC, he decided to do what he wanted to do, which the FEC probably would have ruled in his favor on if democrats weren't filibustering nominations.

so the DNC sued the McCain campaign, and in the original suit, they were told to give the FEC X amount of time to come to a decision before pursuing it further. the deadline for the FEC to come to a decision was either yesterday or today, and lo and behold, they haven't -- BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE FILIBUSTERING FEC NOMINATIONS that would allow them to be a functioning body.

I see. Unfortunate.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: loki8481

Originally posted by: Dari

Is it or isn't it still before the court?

my understanding is that John McCain appealed to the FEC regarding public financing, except the FEC couldn't rule on his appeal one way or the other because (again) the democrats are filibustering any FEC nomination that would bring their numbers up to the point where they could hold a quorum. with a non-functioning FEC, he decided to do what he wanted to do, which the FEC probably would have ruled in his favor on if democrats weren't filibustering nominations.

so the DNC sued the McCain campaign, and in the original suit, they were told to give the FEC X amount of time to come to a decision before pursuing it further. the deadline for the FEC to come to a decision was either yesterday or today, and lo and behold, they haven't -- BECAUSE THE DEMOCRATS ARE FILIBUSTERING FEC NOMINATIONS that would allow them to be a functioning body.

Loki,

You seem to have a pretty good sized hard-on for blaming the (D)s on this one. I can readily admit that they have a part in it, but why don't you mention that the (R) president is only interested in nominating completely biased cronies to the position also?

President Bush nominated two controversial lawyers to the Federal Election Commission yesterday: Hans von Spakovsky who helped Georgia win approval of a disputed voter-identification law, and Robert D. Lenhard, who was part of a legal team that challenged the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

.......
In a letter to Senate Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott (R-Miss.), Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) wrote that he is "extremely troubled" by the von Spakovsky nomination. Kennedy contends that von Spakovsky "may be at the heart of the political interference that is undermining the [Justice] Department's enforcement of federal civil laws."

Career Justice Department lawyers involved in a Georgia case said von Spakovsky pushed strongly for approval of a state program requiring voters to have photo identification. A team of staff lawyers that examined the case recommended 4 to 1 that the Georgia plan should be rejected because it would harm black voters; the recommendation was overruled by von Spakovsky and other senior officials in the Civil Rights Division.

Before working in the Justice Department, von Spakovsky was the Republican Party chairman in Fulton County, Ga., and served on the board of the Voter Integrity Project, which advocated regular purging of voter roles to prevent felons from casting ballots.

.............

The Lenhard nomination, first proposed in July 2003, has provoked strong opposition from advocacy groups seeking tough enforcement of campaign finance laws, especially the 2002 McCain-Feingold bill.

Meredith McGehee, president and executive director of the Alliance for Better Campaigns, described the prospect of Lenhard replacing Thomas as "beyond disappointing" when it was first proposed.

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: loki8481
THE DEMOCRATS ARE FILIBUSTERING FEC NOMINATIONS that would allow them to be a functioning body.

The Senate finally approved a bunch of FEC nominations yesterday.

Those new FEC appointees are going to have a ton of work to catch up on.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why would one nominate a person to a political position that has a different viewpoint than the nominator.

You go with the people that you feel comfortable with. Let the opposition decide if they are qualified by experience, not by political leaning.

Federal Judgeships would be filled instead of sitting vacant because someone does not like the color of a tie.

Politicians looking out for themselves rather than the welfare of their constituents or the country. Who would have thought that could be so.

Nominate a person, have a decision by those that have the authority and be done with it.
If the person is not qualified, then reject and take the next nominee. But reject because of qualifications, not due to a political pissing match.

But that is an atheis to a politician.

 

[nageov3t]

what's worse, having some possibly questionable people appointed by the president on the FEC or not having a functioning FEC at all?

I only blame the democrats for waiting until after the deadline set by the court to stop filibustering every nomination.

 

[Thump553]

I don't blame the democrats at all. Look at the nominations Bush has made in the past-FEC, etc.-all neo-con doctrine driven. Heck, just yesterday the Inspector General's report came out blasting the Bush Dept of Justice for illegally using politics as a selection criteria for nonpolitical positions-heck it was one of their main criteria-in volation of express ststues on point.

Should Bush be trusted to nominate fair and honest people to oversee the political process? Sure, if we want to end up like Zimbabwe.

The filibuster occured because Bush's nominee's were clearly unacceptable. Who's to blame-the party attempting to stack the deck with prejudiced nominations or those resisting that effort? Certainly, not all filibusters are bad and this is a prime example of a good one.