McCain turns down FEC matching funds

[CrimsonWhite]

Frustrated you can't think of more stupid questions?

Frustrated that the Democrats are campaigning for the general when they can't even choose a candidate. Frustrated at the party line. McCain will be vindicated. You will still be an idiot.

 

[Dogger]

Harry Reid want to vote on each nominee individually. The GOP wants to have a vote on the entire slate, because one nominee (Hans von Spakovsky) is really loathsome, and cannot get confirmed on his own.

Senate rules alow a minority to obstuct its business.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where in the Constitution does it say Congress must vote on presidential appointees.

He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articleii.html

Congress does not have the right nor power to simply not act. The power is granted and must be exersized. Once the President nominates someone Congress must act to "consent and advice" that means approve or disapprove. It does not mean refuse to act at all.

 

[jreeves]

It's hard to believe that the editor of the Harvard Law Review would making a binding commitment without any discussion of the terms. Indeed, here are Obama's exact words: "If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

That is an agreement to negotiate and nothing else. Inferring a binding agreement from that is unfounded, as Obama wants to resolve the issues regarding the participation of "third parties." In other words, he does not want to tie his hands and then get overun by attacks from Sec. 527 groups like the Swiftboat Liars for Bush.

McCain has not agreed to terms, so Obama is properly concerned about sandbagging. And given McCain's tricky behavior on primary campaign funding, Obama should not tie his own hands when McCain has proven he will ignore his obligations the minute it suits him.

The editor of the Harvard Law Review....Lmao....

 

[Larkinn]

It STATES they must when it gives them the power to consent. One must exersize that power or one is not doing their duty.

It really doesn't.

Congress does not have the right nor power to simply not act. The power is granted and must be exersized. Once the President nominates someone Congress must act to "consent and advice" that means approve or disapprove. It does not mean refuse to act at all.

No it doesn't. It says "with the advice and consent". Congress hasn't given its advice and consent and its not required to do so.

 

[Larkinn]

Frustrated that the Democrats are campaigning for the general when they can't even choose a candidate. Frustrated at the party line. McCain will be vindicated. You will still be an idiot.

Of course he'll be vindicated. I mean you said so, right? And we are all aware of how knowledgable you've been on this subjet. I mean I only corrected very simple mistakes you made...what twice now?

 

[Dogger]

No it doesn't. It says "with the advice and consent". Congress hasn't given its advice and consent and its not required to do so.

That is certainly the way the GOP saw it under Clinton. Judiciary Committee Republicans sat on 106 federal judicial appointments, some for over 2 years, until Bush came along.

Clinton had a history of appointing moderate judges. When the Senate had the gall to block a handful of the most extremist Bush appointments, however, the very same Judiciary Committee Republicans reversed course 180 degrees, and began screaming about Senate obstruction.

 

[jreeves]

Yes, that part. Before he won, it was collateral. Therefore at some point it was collateral. Therefore, he got locked in.

You can argue the other way, but its not a pretty argument.

Oh, and besides that, he can't pull out of FEC funding anyway since there aren't enough members to let him go.

Good God, he can't withdrawl from FEC funding, he never took one red cent from the FEC.

 

[Larkinn]

Good God, he can't withdrawl from FEC funding, he never took one red cent from the FEC.

Thats relevant how exactly?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

It really doesn't.



No it doesn't. It says "with the advice and consent". Congress hasn't given its advice and consent and its not required to do so.

Yes it is Mensa boy. And in fact the article starts have by saying they must do so with the Senators present. No requirement to have anything more than a qurom.

 

[jreeves]

Thats relevant how exactly?

Oh, and besides that, he can't pull out of FEC funding anyway since there aren't enough members to let him go.

That's your post, not mine. He hasn't accepted one red cent as of yet, so yes he can pull out.

 

[jillian]

That's your post, not mine. He hasn't accepted one red cent as of yet, so yes he can pull out.

Did you bother reading any part of this thread?

He BENEFITTED from the funds.

I understand it's really too complex for you, but try to follow along.

 

[Larkinn]

Yes it is Mensa boy.

No, retard, its not.

And in fact the article starts have by saying they must do so with the Senators present. No requirement to have anything more than a qurom.

It never says must.

 

[Larkinn]

That's your post, not mine. He hasn't accepted one red cent as of yet, so yes he can pull out.

Here are the FEC guidelines.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/11cfrv1_08.html

Please quote me where in them it says that a candidate can withdraw from Federal funding as long as they have received no funds.

Also, there aren't enough members to let him withdraw even if he meets that burden. So cheers. Hes pretty much locked in.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No, retard, its not.



It never says must.

The only retard here is you for claiming the Congress can refuse to do it's required duty.

 

[Larkinn]

The only retard here is you for claiming the Congress can refuse to do it's required duty.

I love when you try and intepret the Constitution. Its really quite amusing.

Even ASSUMING that if the Constitution says Congress does something, that means they MUST do it, do you think that Congress doesn't have other things it HAS to do? Even with that asinine interpretation, Congress would just always be doing things it must do, and in the end some things just get left behind. Ah well, so sad.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I love when you try and intepret the Constitution. Its really quite amusing.

Even ASSUMING that if the Constitution says Congress does something, that means they MUST do it, do you think that Congress doesn't have other things it HAS to do? Even with that asinine interpretation, Congress would just always be doing things it must do, and in the end some things just get left behind. Ah well, so sad.

Congress and the Senate have division of duties. A committee exists for this purpose you moron. They refuse to move the nominations to the floor for a vote. Not because they do not have time and not because they are busy with something else, as you WELL know but because they are afraid they do not have the votes to prevent the appointments.

Even the argument that the Republicans are forcing a block vote is irrelevant, it is simple if the one guy is so bad, move to a vote and vote the block DOWN. Duty done, back in the President's lap. They refuse to do that. That is dereliction of duty.

 

[jreeves]

Here are the FEC guidelines.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/11cfrv1_08.html

Please quote me where in them it says that a candidate can withdraw from Federal funding as long as they have received no funds.

Also, there aren't enough members to let him withdraw even if he meets that burden. So cheers. Hes pretty much locked in.

I guess when the court throws out the Democrats lawsuit, you'll apoligize right?

 

[jreeves]

Here are the FEC guidelines.

http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_08/11cfrv1_08.html

Please quote me where in them it says that a candidate can withdraw from Federal funding as long as they have received no funds.

Also, there aren't enough members to let him withdraw even if he meets that burden. So cheers. Hes pretty much locked in.

Show me where MCcain has taken one red cent in FEC funding...oh ok...I see your speaking out your arse again....

 

[Dogger]

It's apparent the McCain defenders are unaware of how the process works. The FEC rarely gets full funding disbursed in time to use it, so candidates routinely get bank loans secured by the Matching Funds. The loan is repaid when the funds are received. Once the candidate pledges the funds as collateral, he cannot withdraw from the program.

McCain muddied the waters. He is trying to claim that the "security interest" was contingent on events that did not occur. But he also surrendered his right to use the funds for any purpose other than repaying the loan, and made binding promises to insure his ability to receive the money in the event that his campaigned failed. Those were not future obligations; they were present obligations and McCain was bound by them at the moment he signed the loan agreement.

In simple language, McCain told the bank that the money was collateral of last resort, and guaranteed that it would be preserved for payment of the loan before payment of any other debt if other sources dried up or were insufficient. It's like buying a car, and using the car as collateral and your house as secondary collateral. On default, you lose the car. If that doesn't cover the loan, you lose the house as well.