5.8 million is the amount of matching funds he will get. That is the maximum amount, which he already qualified for based on donations at the time of the loan.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
McCain turns down FEC matching funds
- Thread starter Gunny
- Start date
5.8 million is the amount of matching funds he will get. That is the maximum amount, which he already qualified for based on donations at the time of the loan.
5.8 million is the amount of matching funds he will get. That is the maximum amount, which he already qualified for based on donations at the time of the loan.
So your curious why the bank would want him to guarantee that he is getting at least $5.8 million to repay a $1 million loan? Thats the question?
I did that already, and subsequently added the links. HERE Read paragraphs 44 - 48 of the Complaint.I have no intention of reading page after page, go ahead provide the SPECIFIC part that states the loan is contingent on McCain getting matching funds.
McCain isn't saying that there was no Security Agreement; he's saying it was contingent, and that the contigency did not occur. But it wasn't contigent; it was alternative security. The loan had to be repaid either by campaign funds or federal matching funds. And in either event, the federal funds were an inducement for the loan; they guaranteed that the bank got its money if other sources dried up.
Why don't you actually read the entire agreement, instead of just the first 2 pages as if thats all the loan is about?
Try page 22. Specifically where it says Borrower agrees to reapply for federal funds.
You mean the part where the public funding application is contingent on him losing. If he wins, which he did, then public funds is not collateral. It is attached, read it again slowly.
Attachments
You mean the part where the public funding application is contingent on him losing. If he wins, which he did, then public funds is not collateral. It is attached, read it again slowly.
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.
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.
That is not how it reads. Not literally or legally. Show me link to the FEC not allowing McCain out of public funding.
That is not how it reads. Not literally or legally.
Umm, yes, actually it does. He would not have gotten the extra $1 mil if he hadn't had public funding as a possibility. Therefore it was used as collateral.
Show me link to the FEC not allowing McCain out of public funding.
Do me a favor and read the thread before asking any more questions. It would save me the bother of having to repost shit, and you the bother of making stupid mistakes like you did before when you referred to the original $3 mil as opposed to the $1 mil supplementary loan.
But, here you go anyways.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/FECtoMcCain.PDF
Umm, yes, actually it does. He would not have gotten the extra $1 mil if he hadn't had public funding as a possibility. Therefore it was used as collateral.
Do me a favor and read the thread before asking any more questions. It would save me the bother of having to repost shit, and you the bother of making stupid mistakes like you did before when you referred to the original $3 mil as opposed to the $1 mil supplementary loan.
But, here you go anyways.
http://www.fec.gov/press/press2008/FECtoMcCain.PDF
Are you really this slow? All this letter says is that they will vote on it when they have a quorum. You stated that McCain does not have the votes to opt out. This is where you said it:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=672507&postcount=61
Now take a deep breath and prove that.
P.S. I didn't ask a question.
Are you really this slow? All this letter says is that they will vote on it when they have a quorum. You stated that McCain does not have the votes to opt out. This is where you said it:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/showpost.php?p=672507&postcount=61
Now take a deep breath and prove that.
Do a little bit of reading.
He needs FOUR votes on the FEC to allow him to opt out. Know why he can't get four? Because there are currently only 2 members on the panel . He won't get the quorum because there aren't enough members to HAVE a quorum. There haven't been for some time.
P.S. I didn't ask a question.
You asked me to show you a link.
Now, do your homework before you post again. ALL of this information has been posted on this thread. Read the link I posted from TPM, it explains all of this for you.
Do a little bit of reading.
He needs FOUR votes on the FEC to allow him to opt out. Know why he can't get four? Because there are currently only 2 members on the panel . He won't get the quorum because there aren't enough members to HAVE a quorum. There haven't been for some time.
You asked me to show you a link.
Now, do your homework before you post again. ALL of this information has been posted on this thread. Read the link I posted from TPM, it explains all of this for you.
And who's fault is it there is no quorum? Why it is the Democrats fault. So much for them running our Government effectively.
And who's fault is it there is no quorum? Why it is the Democrats fault. So much for them running our Government effectively.
The Democrats run the government?
Oh, wait, the President picks the nominees. Is it your opinion that the Democrats should just rubber stamp whoever the President picks?
So...because the president is unable to get HIS nominees confirmed...you want to blame the Senate? What a surprise.
The Democrats run the government?
Oh, wait, the President picks the nominees. Is it your opinion that the Democrats should just rubber stamp whoever the President picks?
So...because the president is unable to get HIS nominees confirmed...you want to blame the Senate? What a surprise.
The problem is not people nominated you boob, read the article, Congress refuses to VOTE on them, guess who makes THAT decision?
The problem is not people nominated you boob, read the article, Congress refuses to VOTE on them, guess who makes THAT decision?
Gee, I wonder WHY Congress refuses to vote on them? Could it be because of the people Bush nominated?
Gee, I wonder WHY Congress refuses to vote on them? Could it be because of the people Bush nominated?
They do not have that authority. If they disagree with his nominees the power they have is to vote them down, not refuse to vote on them. Last I checked there is NOT a majority of republicans so this should be no problem, unless in fact democrats intend to vote for them.
They do not have that authority. If they disagree with his nominees the power they have is to vote them down, not refuse to vote on them.
They don't have the authority to not vote on them? Actually, yes indeedy do, they have that authority.
Do a little bit of reading.
He needs FOUR votes on the FEC to allow him to opt out. Know why he can't get four? Because there are currently only 2 members on the panel . He won't get the quorum because there aren't enough members to HAVE a quorum. There haven't been for some time.
You asked me to show you a link.
Now, do your homework before you post again. ALL of this information has been posted on this thread. Read the link I posted from TPM, it explains all of this for you.
They don't have the authority to not vote on them? Actually, yes indeedy do, they have that authority.
No they do not. They are REQUIRED to consent or refuse by VOTE, not by simply refusing to do their sworn duty. The President Nominated someone, now Congress must either approve or disapprove of his choice. The Constitution does not say Congress can just not do its sworn duty and in fact allows the President to appoint between congressional sessions for that purpose.
Frustrated you can't think of more stupid questions?
No they do not. They are REQUIRED to consent or refuse by VOTE, not by simply refusing to do their sworn duty. The President Nominated someone, now Congress must either approve or disapprove of his choice. The Constitution does not say Congress can just not do its sworn duty and in fact allows the President to appoint between congressional sessions for that purpose.
Where in the Constitution does it say Congress must vote on presidential appointees.
Where in the Constitution does it say Congress must vote on presidential appointees.
It STATES they must when it gives them the power to consent. One must exersize that power or one is not doing their duty.
Similar threads
- Locked
- Replies
- 16
- Views
- 536
- Replies
- 65
- Views
- 6K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 3K
- Locked
- Replies
- 52
- Views
- 1K
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 46
- Views
- 320
- Replies
- 6
- Views
- 21
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 25
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8061
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 470
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-