Political and religious commentary from a liberal, secular, humanistic perspective.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
McCain and the Letter of the Law
McCain, according to much of the media, is a "maverick" and a fighter for justice, and one thing that exemplifies this is his support for campaign finance reform.
According to a story by Barry Meier and Margot Williams in The New York Times, McCain got on that campaign finance reform bandwagon last year and "backed legislation ... requiring presidential candidates to pay the actual cost of flying on corporate jets.
"The law," writes Meier and Williams, "which requires campaigns to pay charter rates when using such jets rather than cheaper first-class fares, was intended to reduce the influence of lobbyists and create a level financial playing field."
First off, I can't imagine why a candidate would be allowed to use a corporate jet for any campaign-related purpose, no matter what the cost. I'm naive, I know, but I'm constantly amazed at how corruption rules the roost among the chicken-hawks, the chicken-hearted, and the chicken-shit in Washington.
If you're flying around on a jet owned by the ABC Major Weapons Corporation while campaigning for the presidency, the cost is really incidental to the real problem which is that the ABC Major Weapons Corporation is going to expect something in return for the use of their corporate jet. And you can bet your bippy that it won't be something to help the "average" American citizen!
Duh!
Back to McCain, who despite the media's adulation, is really not so righteous as painted on paper and Television. Here's what The New York Times says: "...over a seven-month period beginning last summer, Mr. McCain's cash-short campaign gave itself an advantage by using a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife, Cindy McCain, according to public records. For five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes, those records show."
The McCain campaign paid $241,149 to use the plane, which is estimated to be the cost of chartering the same type of jet for "a month or two."
You might think that was illegal, but it wasn't because there's a loophole in the law that "exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control." The Federal Election Commission tried to close the loophole by requiring candidates pay a more appropriate amount for using family-owned planes, but the FEC was not able to pull it off.
Some people think, even though legal, it isn't right for McCain to use his wife's jet. While using his wife's jet campaigning for president may be OK according to "the letter of the law," such activity does "not reflect its spirit."
Sheila Krumholz, who leads a nonpartisan organization that collects and analyzes campaign data said "This amounts to a subsidy for his campaign, which is notable given how badly they were struggling last year."
How did the McCain campaign respond when queried about this "problem?" McCain could not be reached, but a spokeswoman, Jill Hazelbaker said that they had done everything on the up and up - legally and ethically - by paying first-class airfares for McCain's flights about the country.
But, last summer, McCain (before he started flying around on his wife's jet) said he would not utilize his wife's vast financial resources in his bid for the Republican nomination. "I have never thought about it," said John, according to The Arizona Republic. "I would never do such a thing, so I wouldn't know what the legalities are."
Well, we're going to leave it there. John McCain has a bad habit of saying one thing and doing another or conveniently forgetting what he said as he does the opposite or denying that he held a position as he now proposes the opposite position.
Maybe he's just getting old? Nah, he's always been that way!
The complete article from the New York Times is available here.
And another article about McCain being the fox guarding the chickenhouse...here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I fear that the electorate does not care enough about such niceties. They either like or dislike a candidate. They vote with their gut and/or their pocketbook. how else can we explain Bush's second win?
Bob Poris
Post a Comment