This  is a rebuttal of  the
McCain raises $62.5 million through public finance loophole
diary,  which is on the rec list despite being  almost libelous.
The diary  accuses McCain of "violating his public financing pledge"
(in "grand style") by "exploiting a loophole".
Rational minds must disagree:
the factual  truth is that  this is just how the process works .
My comment from all the way back on JUNE 25 accuses the Obama campaign
of pissing away $84M for September and October by FAILING to
do THE SAME thing that the McCain campaign "is accused of" doing in the diary.

For those who didn't click the links:
The McCain campaign is (surprise, surprise)
soliciting and routing donations to the Republican National Committee.
Meanwhile, the Obama campaign, for better or for worse,
is not bragging about the fact that it is asking people
to donate to the Democratic National Committee.

According to FEC reports filed yesterday, John McCain has already raised at $62.5 million in private funds that can be used for his general election campaign -- even though he's already committed to accepting public funding for the general.

Moreover, based on my own analysis, of that $62.5 million, three-quarters -- $46.3 million -- comes from a total of 1,803 wealthy individuals who made five figure contributions averaging $25,664 each.

So not only is John McCain blatantly violating his public financing pledge, but he's doing it in grand style, raising money in increments of up to $70,000 per donor -- more than thirty times the amount a donor can give to Barack Obama's general election campaign.

How is this all possible? How has most of the media missed the story? Allow me to explain.

In a story on The Hill (tip of the hat to electoral-vote.com), the McCain campaign has essentially admitted that Barack Obama was right in his rationale to opt out of public financing.

Obama, as you recall, said that the system was broken and the Republicans masters at gaming the broken system. McCain campaign chairman Rick Davis confirms that fact:

Gene McCarthy used to say that the function of liberal Republicans was that, when they saw a drowning man, they would throw him a rope exactly halfway too short to reach him. Under the ironclad economic rule that there are no progressive multimillion dollar corporations, the New York Times is now, and always has been, a liberal Republican paper. In the editorial today, "New and Not Improved," the Times is letting its desire to appear loftily superior outrun the facts. Just as it did when it permitted the discredited Judith Miller to shill for the Iraq war, the Times is now flacking for the Republicans with today's arguments. As usual, it does so just to create the appearance of being evenhanded while proclaiming a nonexistent equivalence of disreputability between the candidates.

LoLoLaLa's DKos Diary, RNC fundraising email: "From the White to the Courthouse" printed the full rundraing letter from the RNC.  For the full text, go there.

I spent a little time digging, just to see how close the RNC was playing to the chest.  I looked into this statement, which she bolded:

According to the non-partisan FactCheck.org, the RNC receives 98.9% of our funds from voluntary contributions of grassroots leaders

First, FactCheck.org is funded by the Annenbergs.  This is the same Annenberg who bought TV Guide circa 1980 and ran an editorial supporting Ronald Reagan, the first such political propaganda for the Guide.  Factcheck.org cannot be described as "bi-partisan" with any credibility.  A rundown of the headlines and investigations shows their spin; some support Obama's claim but most are just nasty jabs at Obama and poorly done support for McCain.

Yesterday the Obama campaign sent me an e-mail asking for a donation of 30$'s or more, for a limited edition T shirt with the Obama logo. As far as I know this is the first time the campaign has done this, so that's kinda neat. On the other hand though, the message was pretty serious... Monday at midnight is the end of the quarter, and how Obama does now after turning down public financing will be closely scrutinized. If his numbers are weak the chatter will grow about the divided Dems, and how he isn't getting Hillary's people etc.

More below.

UPDATE: Since so many commenters have accuse me of being a 'republican stooge' parroting 'right-wing talking points, I encourage you to take out your frustration by donating at my Obama Page.
2nd UPDATE: Everyone seems to think I'm a Republican troll, which is fine, I guess.  It's certainly your right to come to whatever conclusion you wish.  I would offer the, perhaps fifty or so diaries that I've written advocating progressive causes and Sen. Obama in my defense, if anyone would care to check out what I've written.  

Also, here's an editorial that is running in the Idaho Statesman today, since my bone fides are being called into question.  I don't mind people thinking the diary sucks; that's fine.  Wouldn't be the first sucky diary I've written.  However, I do take offense to all the 'republican stooge' nonsense.  Thanks.

Here is a link to a huffington post from a few days back from Joseph Palmero:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...

It says, amongst other things that:
"The producers should be careful when poking fun at Obama not to provide fuel for the right-wing slime machine. Poke fun at Obama all you want, but do it in a way that also reveals the Republicans’ mendacity and hypocrisy."

Come again? While I may be an Obama supporter no politician is without their faults. In my opinion The Daily Show can't be relied upon to trump up Obama and put down McCain in some partisan way - nor should it be. Thats not to say that its always going to be balanced, but The Daily Show's purpose is to go after media and politicians for their absurdity and to call them on their BS.

I don't think its constructive to give instructions to Jon Stewart et al on how to manage their show to highlight Republican hypocrisy. In light of that, I wanted to see what people at KOS think about this issue and I've posted a few recent clips that go after Barack Obama.

Check them out and weigh in with how YOU feel about the Daily Show and humor that pokes fun at Obama:

Over the last week, this very odd circumstance has occurred where Barack Obama is universally chastised for rejecting public money in the general election, yet John McCain is not touched for accepting public money to gain ballot access and get favorable loans, then dropping out of the system without a ruling from the FEC and spending unlimited amounts in the primary.

Part of this was a total ignorance of campaign finance laws from the punditocracy, but also the silence from the top of the opposing organization.  The DNC has filed a number of lawsuits, but Team Obama had yet to break the silence over McCain's illegalities and gaming the public financing system.

Until today.

The Democratic National Committee has filed suit today in federal district court in Washington, D.C. (PDF) to force the Federal Election Commission to investigate John McCain's decision to unilaterally withdraw from the FEC's matching funds program for the primary election despite his already having used program to to benefit his campaign financially.  

Let's review:  John McCain signed a binding agreement with the FEC back in August 2007 to accept spending limits for the primary and to abide by the conditions of receiving matching funds.  To get out of that agreement, FEC Chairman David Mason explained in February, the FEC must grant permission, and for stating this obvious legal truth David Mason is being forced out of the FEC.

What's more, based on past FEC rulings McCain would not have been allowed to withdraw from the matching funds program, because in December he pledged to use his matching funds as collateral for a private loan to keep his campaign afloat.

So, four months ago the DNC filed a complaint with the FEC to investigate all this, but because there's been no quorum the Commission couldn't actually do anything.  (Four votes are needed to authorize an investigation, and only two of the six seats are currently filled.) But under the law, if the FEC doesn't act within 120 days, you get to sue in district court to force the FEC to act.  What the lawsuit asks the Court to do is issue an order saying, (a) the FEC must act to investigate the complaint within 30 days, and (b) if it doesn't (or can't), the DNC should be able to sue McCain directly to force his compliance with the law.

Moreover, the Commission is likely to be back in business before month's end.  This lawsuit will place this investigation atop its agenda.

[Note: this is a separate complaint than the one initiated by FireDogLake and signed by tens of thousands of citizens like you, which involves McCain's actual breaking of the spending cap.]

Bottom line: John McCain played fast and loose with the law. He used the public financing system when it was convenient and helpful to his campaign, ignored it once the money started flowing again, and now takes a hands-off approach to the millions in the 527 money to be spent on his behalf.  It's time for the shenanigans to stop, and this lawsuit will help shine a light on just how unprincipled this so-called "maverick" is.

One question about public campaign financing that has yet to be asked by the MSM is why did the GOP flip-flop and suddenly embrace taxpayer-financed public elections. Indeed, you could probably count on one hand the number of Republicans that have publicly announced support for public financing.

I would also like to echo another criticism of the MSM for mistakenly reporting that Barack Obama broke a pledge to seek public financing this November. Obama did nothing of the sort as he agreed to public financing IF a unilateral agreement was reached with the Republican nominee.

While Obama has been criticized for his decision to decline public financing, the reality is that the financing mechanism he has implemented, both for his campaign and the DNC, is exactly in keeping with the spirit of the campaign reforms implemented in the wake of Watergate.

Why caving in on retroactive telcom immunity is wrong has been amply diaried here. And I do mean plenty amply. See, for example, Hunter's recent front page diary on the subject.

Senator Obama did say that he would "try" to remove the retroactive immunity provision.

OK, I don't always agree with Yoda. But he's right on target on this one. Obama can get the retroactive immunity provision taken out in the Senate. Reid is not going to treat the next President they way he treated Dodd. If Senator Obama really tries to get retroactive immunity removed, it will be removed.

And if he doesn't, then there's something else he should be reconsidering.

Many people around these parts think that its great that Obama withdrew from public financing..I'm not so sure.  Follow me after the flip where I lay out my reasons.

Looks like Gibson and Stephanopoulos are after Obama again since their hatchet job disguised as a debate:

http://abcnews.go.com/...

They neglect to mention that 90% of Obama's war chest IS public financing.  90% is from donations of $1000 or less!  Count on Olbermann to make that point tonight on Countdown.

Charlie whines like a little two-year old asking if Obama's decision is "fair."  Was it fair in '04 when the Repugs were flush with cash?  Was it fair when they stole Ohio and before that Florida?  It's our turn, bitch!  Deal with it and stop spreading your whiny little propaganda.  This isn't a question of unfairness.  It's a question of justice.  Now bite me!

I hate Disney.

Right this very minute. Every commercial that airs, every T-shirt and mailer printed, every minute every paid staffer works, every copy they make at every campaign office.  He can do this openly and with impunity because the Federal Election Commission has been rendered inoperable by the current Republican administration.

This is the most glaring and salient fact about the state of public financing of the presidential election right now, and should be a prominent part of every article written about Barack Obama's decision to opt out of public financing.

But it's somehow nowhere to be found in discussions in the old media.  Why?  Because it's too complicated for Joe Sixpack to follow?  Nonsense.  Let me explain it with a simple dialogue.

Hey, let's make a deal you and me.  Let's commit to only spending $100 a month on gas from now until the end of the year...

Since Obama announced he was opting out of public financing, the MSM and the McCain campaign have been  are beside themselves with spin, with McCain trying to take the high road, and the media paving the way. This despite McCain's lack of integrity on the issue of campaign finance reform.

One thing is certain, Obama's move, while not a complete surprise, is about to shake up the political establishment.

More below the fold.

I don't see why everyone is buying into the narrative that Barack's decision to forego public financing is breaking his solemn word to talk to the Republican nominee about it if he were to become the Democratic nominee.  I don't see how his opting out is betraying the ideal of people-powered politics.

Gathering up a huge war chest of small donations has been the most significant and important aspect (besides the great speech-making) of Obama's campaign.  This has been generally dismissed or barely--until now--acknowledged.

I can't believe that even the New York Times in their editorial today is so dismissive of this amazing feat and what it represents politically.

The vast numbers of small donors is political change.  It demonstrates its own significance--no polls needed.  It is a poll in and of itself.

Why would people be annoyed that someone who is able to connect so significantly with such a huge number of donors