McCain Says Campaign Finance Reform Is Dead

[struggle4progress]

Source: Associated Press via ABC

End of a movement: McCain says campaign finance reform is dead after Supreme Court decision
WASHINGTON January 24, 2010 (AP)

Sen. John McCain says the movement he led to reform how political campaigns are financed is dead ... McCain says there's not much that can be done about campaign financing now. Still, he predicts a backlash over time from voters once they see the amount of money that corporations and unions pour into political campaigns. McCain spoke Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation."

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=9649150

---

McCain skeptical Supreme Court decision can be countered
By John Amick

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), co-crafter of landmark campaign finance legislation in his career, said he thought not much could be done to counter the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to lift long-held restrictions on corporate donations to political candidates.

"I think that there's going to be, over time, a backlash," McCain said. "Because, when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns -- but, in the short term, the Supreme Court has spoken. I respect their decision."

McCain said he expected the reversal to happen, and thinks the lack of political experience on the court affected some justices.

"I was not surprised at the Supreme Court decision," he said. "I went over to observe the oral arguments. It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA (Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act)" ...

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/01/mccain-skeptical-supreme-court.html?wprss=44

[mzmolly]

1. In other words, he will not work with us on rectifying the decision

as Democrats had hoped.

[flyarm]

27. what is expected from McCain..he followed the campaign Finance rule..Obama did not.

so why should he help out now?

[mzmolly]

31. Obama didn't break any laws. He raised mass amounts of money from individuals.

McCain should "help out now" because he cares about Democracy. Or at least he pretended to when he wrote campaign finance reform legislation.

[flyarm]

34. where did i say "law"..please don't put words in my mouth..thanks. eom

[mzmolly]

41. Campaign finance reform was not intended to limit personal

contributions.

[tonysam]

43. Obama was a hypocrite, that's what.

Campaign finance reform is a cornerstone of Democratic Party principles, just as public education is.

Obama doesn't believe in either.

[mzmolly]

83. What campaign finance law did he break? He raised money from individuals

and WE are the cornerstone of Democracy.

[DallasNE]

46. Not True

McCain did not think he could raise more money on his own that what the Federal government would pay so he opted to take the Federal dollars. Obama thought he could raise more money than the Federal government would pay so he opted not to accept Federal dollars. Besides, there are not the dollars addressed by this decision. In 2012 we can now be sure that each candidate will spend over $1 billion to be elected President. Most of those dollars will have strings attached.

[No Elephants]

55. McCain did not follow the rules. The DNC had filed several complaints

against him, but Bushco, of course, did nothing about them. McCain also "gamed" rules without actually breaking them. Obama broke no rules. He simply opted out of public financing, which each candidate has every right to do. And, by the time that Obama opted out, McCain had given Obama plenty of reason not to trust McCain re: abiding by the public financing rules.

[quakerboy]

78. Which rule did he follow?

And which rule did Obama not?

[No Elephants]

54. To be fair, McCain had filed an amicus brief in the Citizens United case, urging the Court to

uphold McCain Feingold. However, now, thanks to the Roberts Court, a Constitutional amendment is the only legal way out of the decision that I can see. And Constitutional amendments are very problematic. (For instance, what else in the Constitution do you want changed, and what else would the Republicans want changed?)

[mzmolly]

84. We needn't change the Constitution, we can

regulate corporate contributions by other means. Barney Frank is working on legislation in this regard, though I don't have specifics.

[Ruby the Liberal]

2. So the plan is to sit on your butt and wait for the "backlash"?

Lovely.

[Xipe Totec]

6. Wait for the money to roll in, then cry all the way to the bank n/t

[No Elephants]

56. Please see Reply # 54.

[Xipe Totec]

88. Non sequitur n/t

[Go2Peace]

21. Then it will be too late. The amount of power that will be consolidated in just a few years will be

tremendous.

[No Elephants]

58. Please see Reply 54.

[PSPS]

3. "and unions"

The MSM is always sure to include that canard, as if "unions" (code for middle-class working people) could ever hope to match the billions of dollars corporations have at their disposal to buy and install legislators.

[FarPoint]

11. Time for everyone to join a Union....

now

[krkaufman]

16. Well, the unions *will* be able to spend more than they have ...

... but it *will* be "funny" to see the comparison between union and corporate expenditures.

[boppers]

23. Top ten 2008 PAC sources:

(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_action_committee )
1. National Association of Realtors PAC $4,020,900
2. IBEW PAC $3,344,650
3. AT&T Federal PAC $3,108,200
4. American Bankers Association (BANK PAC) $2,918,14
5. National Beer Wholesalers Association PAC $2,869,000
6. Dealers Election Action Committee of the National Automobile Dealers Association $2,860,000
7. International Association of Fire Fighters $2,734,900
8. International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE) Political Education Committee $2,704,067
9. American Association for Justice PAC $2,700,500
10. Laborers International Union of North America (LIUNA) PAC $2,555,350

In all-time donors at the above link, Goldman Sachs is #4, AT&T is #2.

It'll be interesting to see if/how the numbers change. I have no doubt that almost *every* organization that can raise funds and run ads will now attempt to do so, either directly or indirectly.

[murielm99]

29. Thanks.

I was looking for something like that that pulled it all together. I don't know why I didn't try Wikipedia. Duh.

[CLANG]

37. The corps must try to enhance shareholder value

I wonder how bad it will have to get before they have their epiphany - when no one is left to buy their products and the federal and state tax bases erode and society collapses.

[bread_and_roses]

42. It's not the direct contributions - it's the UNLIMITED ability to run ADVERTISMENTS

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/8909851

By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned two of its own decisions as well as the decades-old law that said companies and labor unions can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to produce and run their own campaign ads. The decision threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

As I'm sure you're aware, Unions do not have anything resembling the $$ to spend that the Corps do - and now they (oh, and the unions, for what it'll matter) can put on ads right up to the election.

Unions cannot hold a candle to that kind of $$, not even if every internal quarell in the labor movement were put aside and every available $$ amongst all unions in the country pooled.

[boppers]

44. "all unions in the country"?

Why should only US unions be participants? After all, any company that sells public stock willingly sells it to non-citizens, so...

:evilgrin:

(Yes, this is how I'm expecting the legislative/public fight to go down, once people realize that corporations have effectively been granted "US citizenship", even if they're controlled or owned by other nations...)

[bread_and_roses]

45. good catch!

you're right, I was not thinking of the Internationals (unions that is - I was well aware that Corps are international). Not that it will make a difference to my point, as I am guessing you're well aware :) .

[boppers]

82. I was trying to think of something bigger, with more money than corporations...

...and came to the rather scary thought of asking "wait, if corporations are allowed to play, how does this decision affect religious organizations, or hybrid religious/corporate businesses"?

[No Elephants]

60. Not only ads. This case was about an anti'Hillary movie.

[boppers]

80. Yes, and one of the Justices asked if books could be banned from release in the election cycle.

(I forget which Justice that was)..

Ads, magazines, books, movies, bus-stop signs, billboards, websites, etc....

Ugh. Without intervention, 2010 is gonna be bizarre, media-wise.

[WriteDown]

50. At least I can support #5. nt

[No Elephants]

61. We're stunned that you can support McCain getting even with Obama.

But, I don't think that is what McCain was about. I think perhaps McCain saw McCain Feingold as a crowning achievement of his legislative career, instead of as something he merely shilled for. Please see Reply 54 (and, for balance, Reply 55).

[WriteDown]

67. Forget McCain and Obama. I was talking about beer. nt

[boppers]

77. I'm a microbrewery guy, myself...

Side effect of living in Oregon.

:evilgrin:

Perhaps the McCain comment was about McCain's fortune. He married (his second wife) a beer heiress, who controls the privately-held 3rd largest Anheuser-Busch distributor in the country.

Such a thing might also explain why the PAC numbers for 2008 are high, seeing as how they don't even rank in the top 20 since 1988...

[Moosepoop]

40. I agree, except McCain didn't even go with "... and unions"

"I think that there's going to be, over time, a backlash," McCain said. "Because, when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns -- but, in the short term, the Supreme Court has spoken. I respect their decision."

The implication being that unions are the larger threat, not corporations. He's trying to drum up more anti-union sentiment and cast them as the bad boogeymen, and cast the corporations as more of a secondary threat. I wondered how long it would take for that to become a RW stance, and who would be the first to venture it. Didn't have to wait long to find out.

[No Elephants]

62. Please see Reply ##s 54 and 55.

Sometimes, things are not as black or white as they may seem on the surface.

[No Elephants]

57. Bingo. Citizens United was about the movie Hillary, not about unions.

[Johnny Harpo]

4. Interesting How Campaign Reform Is Now Dead After The SCOTUS Decision

n/t

[Diane R]

5. He's getting even with Obama.

I just read the section of 'Game Change' that discusses the McCain/Obama relationship prior to the 2008 election. McCain despised Obama over perceived slights while trying to work together on ethics legislation. He thought Obama was an upstart, a 'line-cutter'; not waiting his turn to run for President.

McCain's interview this morning has all the earmarks of deliberately refusing to be part of the solution...just so he can knife Obama.

[karynnj]

19. I seriously doubt he would have even if he loved Obama as President

McCain seems likely to have a right wing challenge - and McCain/Feingold is one thing that infuriates the far right. There is no way until he secured the nomination would he even consider it - and even after that, I assume it would be carefully polled in AZ by him. I suspect that his original work there was to compensate for being one of the Keating 5.

[boppers]

25. McCain *has* a right wing challenger for his seat.

It's not likely, it's already in play... J.D. Hayworth, of all people.

http://www.google.com/search?q=McCain seat challenger

[karynnj]

28. Thanks - last I had read - it was highly likely

and Haywood is really RW! reading the article, that primary can get really really nasty. If McCain goes after the Abramoff stuff, expect Haywood to go after Keating 5 or other lobbyist problems McCain has. I hope we have a good Democrat running because if this does get dirty, the winner will be weaker.

[No Elephants]

70. McCain had filed an amicus brief with the Supremes, urging them to uphold McCain Feingold.

[No Elephants]

59. Please see Reply 54 (and also 55, for balance).

[tridim]

7. Make no mistake, McCain LOVES this SCOTUS decision.

It's his ticket to easy reelection until the day he finally croaks.

[Mithreal]

9. Would wager many conservative Dems have their ticket as well.

[AlinPA]

24. With about 30 senate seats up this year, the republicans could easily get 40-50M

each from corporations. House seats will be cheaper for them; at 5M each, corporations would only need to put up a little over $2B for the house republicans. (Right wing safe seats would leave more for blue state seats) Yes, I picked the numbers out of the air, but think about how much money corporations would get back if new laws eliminating minimum wage and all environmental laws, outlawing unions, were passed for them. It's a matter of business and a good investment for them.

[No Elephants]

64. Nope. Please see Reply 54 (but, for balance, please also see Reply 55).

[Nickster]

8. Now if there were only a co-equal branch of government that could draft legislation and another

co-equal branch of government that could sign that legislation into law......Guess we just have to sit back and hope for a miracle or something.....

[Mithreal]

10. Enthusiastically support that statement.

[Ruby the Liberal]

30. Some day, we may even be in charge of those co-equal branches.

And what a day it will be! No more gridlock!

:sarcasm:

[Nickster]

33. Silly dreamer.....

[dsc]

39. what law would you like them to pass

the decison is grounded in the first amendment, as in the US Constitution, not a law. This is like the flag burning thing. If we wish to undo this we need to amend the constitution which takes 2/3 of both houses plus 3/4 of the states.

[Nickster]

48. The ruling didn't protect free speech for anyone, it expanded access to corporations that can afford

to purchase more speech. So what does the legislation look like? Not sure, but I don't see any reason that they wouldn't be able to dictate rules around how much everyone can spend or just go the public financing route so that everyone is fairly given their free speech rights. There is a way to write such legislation that will pass Constitutional muster. The answer isn't to just throw our hands up and cry about how the Supreme Court has trampled our freedoms. We can't stand idly by while our democracy is being bought.

[dsc]

49. the supreme court has made it crystal clear that we can't without amending the constitution

we can have public financing and we can incentivise taking it, as we do now at the Presidental level. But even before this case we couldn't ban Perot from spending as much as he wanted on his own campaign as long as he opted out of public financing. Now we can't stop corporations from burrying publicly financed candidates with independent expenditures. I see no way we can alter this by law. We might be able to use corporate charter law to mitigate this some but I don't even hold out much hope for that.

[No Elephants]

66. How would you write the legislation to survive Constitutional review by the Roberts Court?

I am not seeing a way.

As the dissent of the Justices appointed by Democrats pointed out, the Roberts Court went out of its way to invalidate the statute as, supposedly, the mere existence of the statute chilled speech. Along the way, the Roberts Court bypassed about 5 narrower grounds on which it could have based its decision.

[boppers]

85. "to survive Constitutional review by the Roberts Court?"...

I'd go with language that said that non-citizens, and entities controlled in whole or in part by non-citizens, are not entitled to vote, or campaign, or donate. Let them hang themselves by their own petard trying to justify why some non-citizens, but not others, are allowed to campaign.

[No Elephants]

63. Sorry, but the SCOTUS gets the final say on what the Constitution means. Please see Reply 54.

[jpak]

12. I bet McCain voted to appoint every one of those 5:4 RWers

yup

[Mithreal]

38. safe bet

[No Elephants]

68. Probably, but he tried to defend McCain Feingold in this case, too. Please see Reply 54. On the

other hand, he was not too picky about obeying McCain Feingold when he ran for President. Please see Reply 55.

[emsimon33]

13. McCain is a lame duck senator

He is a tired old man. He was never really a fighter--more of a lover.

[old mark]

22. More of a motherfucker, actually. nt

[No Elephants]

71. Meh. I doubt he was much of a lover, either.

[Guilded Lilly]

14. Backlash indeed

When only conservatives are vying for corporation *jobs*, they will turn on each other with tremendous viciousness. Eating their young. Imploding. Dare we hope...destroying their own party???
Greed breeds some pretty murderous bedfellows.

[Bonhomme Richard]

15. He got his marching orders from the repug leadership.

Whatever the hell that means.

[Journeyman]

17. Earlier in his career, McCain conceded "slavery is here to stay" when Dred Scott was decided. . .

"Over time," the young veteran of the Mexican-American War said, "when the public learns more about the wretched conditions under which slaves toil, there may be a backlash. But in the short term, Taney and his Court have spoken, and I respect their decision."

McCain said he expected the Slave-Centric Court to rule against the Bondsman, and thinks their incipient racism and desire to protect the Planter Class affected their judgment.

"I was not surprised at Taney's decision," the long-time Senator and failed human said. "I went over to observe the oral arguments and it was very clear, by the disdain and open ridicule they showed to the Slave and his obviously deluded supporters, the Court was very much opposed to BCRA (Behavior Conducive with a Rational Attitude).

"They're not mavericks, you know; they're just like me!"

[reformist]

18. Pass a new law limiting how much any single person can spend on politics.

From today's Gallup Poll, Americans may think money = speech, but 76% of Americans also think there should be limits on how much anybody can give to politicians. It's not a big leap to put an overall limit on the total dollars a person can spend in an election year, and I bet most Americans would agree with it.

[dipsydoodle]

20. Yes - that's a solution

now that corporations have personhood status with regard to this. Limit the contribution that a person can contribute - that'll fuck 'em.

[groundloop]

26. That would be limiting the corporate "persons" speech

It's going to be a hell of a battle to come up with means to legislate around this mess. Seems that the only way will be a cosntitutional amendmant. In the mean time we need to be pointing out to right wingers that this decision also means that FOREIGN corporations can spend freely to influence our elections.

[reformist]

35. Rep. Jim DeMint was asked about FOREIGN money this morning.

And he totally dodged the question. It's going to be impossible for Republicans to defend this. I know it's a horrible decision the Supreme Court made, but politically it's a winner for Democrats.

[AlinPA]

47. How so?

[winyanstaz]

32. Shut up McCain you old traitor

[goclark]

51. Old, old traitor

What a waste.

[No Elephants]

72. Jeebus, we don't have to go ageist. Great Democrats get old, too.

And, if you're lucky, so will you.

[winyanstaz]

86. First...I am already older than dirt....

but just so you know...I was not knocking his chronological age...but his long ancient history of selling out and betraying this country's taxpayers. :)

[fascisthunter]

36. the Man is a Fraud

he just like his fascist friends sitting on the Supreme Court want to destroy democracy itself.

[No Elephants]

73. Sometimes, people are more complex than that. Please see Reply 54, but also see 55.

[Don Draper]

52. Interstingly, if he would have become president

He would have appointed conservative supreme court justices who would have ruled against campaign finance reform.

[Don Draper]

53. Apart from amending the constitution

I don't see how we will get campaign finance reform. We need a clear amendment in the constitution forbidding the bribing of our officials.

[No Elephants]

74. Amending the Constitution ain't so easy, either.

[TexasObserver]

65. he's finally right about something

[unkachuck]

69. hey johnny....

"I think that there's going to be, over time, a backlash,"

....if you're truly upset, why don't you lead a movement from the Right for a Constitutional Amendment that will narrow the scope of the First Amendment to actual, living, human, citizens....I'm sure, we on the Left, would be happy to join in and meet you in the middle....

....of course, this would definitely upset your corporate buddies and you are getting older....how much fight do you have left in you?....spearhead a Constitutional Amendment and I might, almost, maybe, possibly, you-never-know, respect you....

[No Elephants]

75. Please see Reply 54. But, before you go respecting him too much, see 55.

[applegrove]

76. Watch McCain turn into a right wingnut as he fights for his senate seat. It will be really very sad

to watch. No legacy for him.

[bemildred]

79. So did he figure that out all by himself? nt

[struggle4progress]

81. I'm not often a McCain fan, but he was more or less on the right side of this issue

It's not that frequent to hear a Senator from his party saying conservative justices are "naive" and "sarcastic"

[EndElectoral]

87. Hogwash.If McCain had balls he'd begin a constitutional amendment limiting corporations as citizens

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

89. how mavericky

he's gonna sit this out and let the special interests run amok
if the guy had even .00001% of the integrity he gets wrongly assigned to him, he'd be holding a joint press conference with feingold and obama denouncing this judicial activism from the federalist society thugs

[davidpdx]

90. McCain: campaign finance reform is dead

Me: Yeah so are you, you wretched good for nothing spinless fool.