Mittens to rejoin presidential race

Damocles said:
It's rubbish. He pledged that he would take those funds "if needed" in the contract. As I said, his nemesis is just making an ass of himself. Basically he is saying that because they can't meet he can't get out and "that's that".
Click to expand...


Well, that's kind of pledging them as security isn't it? I mean, the bank has a mortgage on my house "if needed."

Additionally, he used FEC certification to get on the ballot in plenty of states, by-passing the signature collection process. That's getting a material gain from the system, no?


Postscript: Who is his nemesis?
 
Dungheap said:
Well, that's kind of pledging them as security isn't it? I mean, the bank has a mortgage on my house "if needed."

Additionally, he used FEC certification to get on the ballot in plenty of states, by-passing the signature collection process. That's getting a material gain from the system, no?


Postscript: Who is his nemesis?
Click to expand...
No, he pledged "if necessary" he didn't say "no matter what", one is a pledge the other is conditional.
 
Socrtease said:
And to think this whole FEC thing has been orchestrated by a fellow traveler from the republican party. Is this how the conservatives intend to damage McCain? Use a pawn in the FEC to shut him down till august? The big tent seems to be putting partitions up now.
Click to expand...
Yes, it appears that they are shooting themselves in the foot.
 
Dungheap said:
The FEC takes a different view. Essentially, the FEC says that McCain pledged the public funds as security for private financing and is therefore locked into the public financing system.

Additionally, he has already opted in and can only opt out with FEC approval. The FEC can't meet because they don't have a quorum.

EDIT: If he is in the system and spends more that the cap there are serious penalties, both civilly and criminally.
Click to expand...

1) The FEC did NOT take that view. They requested further details so they could determine IF he had pledged the funds.

2) Mason and McCain have gone at it numerous times over campaign financing. Mason is just being an ass and I hope he gets fried for it. McCain did not take the funds nor did he pledge them. That was the whole damn reason he used his donor lists and insurance policy as collateral for the loan.
 
Superfreak said:
1) The FEC did NOT take that view. They requested further details so they could determine IF he had pledged the funds.

2) Mason and McCain have gone at it numerous times over campaign financing. Mason is just being an ass and I hope he gets fried for it. McCain did not take the funds nor did he pledge them. That was the whole damn reason he used his donor lists and insurance policy as collateral for the loan.
Click to expand...


1) Fair enough. The implication is clearly that the funds may have been pledged as security.

2) There is clear FEC precedent that pledging the funds to get private financing locks you into the system. McCain tried to get cute with it. He took a risk and risks sometimes backfire. Mason is simply going on firmly established FEC precedent.

3) What about using FEC certification to get on the ballot?
 
Dungheap said:
Well, that's kind of pledging them as security isn't it? I mean, the bank has a mortgage on my house "if needed."

Additionally, he used FEC certification to get on the ballot in plenty of states, by-passing the signature collection process. That's getting a material gain from the system, no?


Postscript: Who is his nemesis?
Click to expand...

1) No, it is not. It is telling the bank that further collateral will be used if necessary. It is like taking a loan out and you pledge asset "a" as collateral but show the bank that you have assets "a, b & c" to let them know that should there be a problem you have other assets you can use as collateral.

2) The second point I am not sure on. From what I have read, that is not enough to stop him from withdrawing from the system. But again, on that point I am not sure.

MASON and McCain have had "disagreements" on campaign financing issues in the past.
 
Dungheap said:
1) Fair enough. The implication is clearly that the funds may have been pledged as security.

2) There is clear FEC precedent that pledging the funds to get private financing locks you into the system. McCain tried to get cute with it. He took a risk and risks sometimes backfire. Mason is simply going on firmly established FEC precedent.

3) What about using FEC certification to get on the ballot?
Click to expand...

1) Actually, the implication is that Mason is an ass.

2) Yes, there is. But again, McCain did not pledge the funds. He did not take a risk. He deliberately made sure to avoid locking himself into the system. Mason is simply trying to act like a display of assets is somehow equated to collateral.

3) I answered that right as you were posting that. That point I am not sure, but have not read anything that states it would prohibit McCain from withdrawing.
 
Superfreak said:
1) Actually, the implication is that Mason is an ass.

2) Yes, there is. But again, McCain did not pledge the funds. He did not take a risk. He deliberately made sure to avoid locking himself into the system. Mason is simply trying to act like a display of assets is somehow equated to collateral.

3) I answered that right as you were posting that. That point I am not sure, but have not read anything that states it would prohibit McCain from withdrawing.
Click to expand...

OK, you think Mason is an ass but that doesn't make it so. The Gephardt opinion clearly states:

The Commission will also agree to rescind candidate agreements prior to the payment date for any certified Matching Payment funds because candidates and their principal campaign committees that have not received any matching funds and that have not pledged any Commission certification of funds as security for private financing have not yet received or used any of the funds in the matching payment account.
Click to expand...

Two things to highlight here:

1) The Commission must agree to rescind the candidate agreement. The agreement is not rescinded simply by a candidate "opting out."

2) Whether the funds were pledged as security seems to be an open question at least and a rather important question. McCain got some bad advice and tried to get cute with the pledging as security issue. Again, he took a risk. Risks sometimes don't pay off.
 
Dungheap said:
OK, you think Mason is an ass but that doesn't make it so. The Gephardt opinion clearly states:



Two things to highlight here:

1) The Commission must agree to rescind the candidate agreement. The agreement is not rescinded simply by a candidate "opting out."

2) Whether the funds were pledged as security seems to be an open question at least and a rather important question. McCain got some bad advice and tried to get cute with the pledging as security issue. Again, he took a risk. Risks sometimes don't pay off.
Click to expand...


1) In the past, has the commission ever rejected someone pulling out of the system that has not used funds or pledged them? NO. They have not. Given that they do not have a quorom... what is McCain supposed to do?

2) Again... the funds were not pledged. This is just Mason being an ass. No matter how many times you want to say "there is an issue", there isn't. McCain did not get bad advice. He set it up specifically so that the funds were not pledged. Saying that you will provide additional collateral if needed is not the same as using the additional assets as collateral now.
 
Superfreak said:
1) In the past, has the commission ever rejected someone pulling out of the system that has not used funds or pledged them? NO. They have not. Given that they do not have a quorom... what is McCain supposed to do?

2) Again... the funds were not pledged. This is just Mason being an ass. No matter how many times you want to say "there is an issue", there isn't. McCain did not get bad advice. He set it up specifically so that the funds were not pledged. Saying that you will provide additional collateral if needed is not the same as using the additional assets as collateral now.
Click to expand...


1) No one has ever opted out after opting in. McCain should have either opted in or not. Not opted in and then opted out but promised to opt back in if he failed to beat the spread.

2) He attempted to set it up that way. Without a clear ruling from the FEC that such arrangements were permissible what he did was a risk. You can call Mason an ass all that you like, but that doesn't change the fact that McCain took out a loan without clear precedent that what he did was permitted.
 
By the way, here is the loan provision and it is a gem of legalese:

Additional Requirement. Borrower and lender agree that if Borrower [McCain's campaign commitee] withdraws from the public matching funds program, but John McCain then does not win the next primary or caucus in which he is active (which can be any primary or caucus held the same day) or does not place at least within 10 percentage points of the winner of that primary or caucus, Borrower will cause John McCain to remain an active political candidate and Borrower will, within thirty (3) days of said primary or caucus (i) reapply for public matching funds, (ii) grant to Lender, as additional collateral for the Loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching funds program, and (iii) execute and deliver to Lender such documents, instruments and agreements as Lender may require with respect to the foregoing.
Click to expand...
 
Superfreak said:
Good job. Now, unlike Mason, are you able to read that and comprehend it?

The public funds were never used as collateral.
Click to expand...


that's quite an authoritative statement.

The FEC is going to decide. You're record of predictions predicated on certainty leaves a lot to be desired: from tax cuts, the the Iraq War, to WMD
 
Cypress said:
that's quite an authoritative statement.

The FEC is going to decide. You're record of predictions predicated on certainty leaves a lot to be desired: from tax cuts, the the Iraq War, to WMD
Click to expand...

what were Superfreak's predictions on those issues?
 
Superfreak said:
Good job. Now, unlike Mason, are you able to read that and comprehend it?

The public funds were never used as collateral.
Click to expand...


Really, I think it depends. McCain says he didn't use them as security, instead he merely promised to use them as security. Whether the FEC think that is a distinction without a difference is the critical matter and, again, there is no clear precedent on that. Hence, the risk.

Leaving that aside though, it's pretty screwed up for McCain to agree to relinquish control over his presidential campaign and promise to remain in the race just to get the public to finance his failed effort.
 
Cypress said:
that's quite an authoritative statement.

The FEC is going to decide. You're record of predictions predicated on certainty leaves a lot to be desired: from tax cuts, the the Iraq War, to WMD
Click to expand...

LMAO.... nice try.

1) I have always stated that tax cuts only work in the short term unless accompanied by corresponding spending cuts.

2) I said everything about how the Iraq war was done was wrong, from timing to management of the war (up until Patraeus). Now, I am sure there will be at least three idiots jumping on this one. So a preemptive strike... saying the war was inevitable is not the same as agreeing with what Bush has done. I know this is a tough concept for many to grasp as moveon.org doesn't allow you to think on your own. But do try. You may find you like independent thought.

3) Yes, I was wrong on WMDs.

4) When other FEC experts say the same thing, yes, I am very comfortable making that call.

5) Without a quorom, Mason is not able to officially make any requests or take any official position.
 
Dungheap said:
Really, I think it depends. McCain says he didn't use them as security, instead he merely promised to use them as security. Whether the FEC think that is a distinction without a difference is the critical matter and, again, there is no clear precedent on that. Hence, the risk.

Leaving that aside though, it's pretty screwed up for McCain to agree to relinquish control over his presidential campaign and promise to remain in the race just to get the public to finance his failed effort.
Click to expand...

You mean exactly like Dean did?

You do realize that Dean opted in to the system... made a whole stink about how everyone should use the system... then he started seeing private funding roll in and guess what.... suddenly he pulled out of the system. So enough of that bullshit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top