TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Congratulations, Bush - FISA Christmas came early, thanks to the spineless Dems
Pages (6): [1] 2 3 4 5 6 »
Congratulations, Bush - FISA Christmas came early, thanks to the spineless Dems
Pretty disgusted right now:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06...taps/index.html
You got your wish, Bush. Hell, you got more than you asked for on this one. Quite the little "compromise", ain't it? Giving your Attorney General the power to essentially wipe out all lawsuits that were investigating just how far you and the telecos were gutting the Constitution.
Yeah, nice compromise.
What an under-the-table conniving little fucking deal Steny Hoyer and the Democratic leaders pulled on this one. This is exactly akin to someone robbing a bank, getting caught, and then re-writing the law saying that it is now legal to rob banks. The only logical conclusions that can be drawn are this:
The cowardice of the Dems. knows no bounds, despite the fact that their stance on this issue was fully supported with higher approval than when they cave and capitulate to Bush and the Republicans on so many issues, all because they seemingly don't want to "stir the pot" and be labeled as "soft on terra" in an election year. If that's truly the case, that's unbelievably fucking pathetic. No surprise that Republican voters actually give higher approval ratings to this Democratic majority Congress than Democratic voters do:
http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf...release_web.pdf
I used to believe that their complete lack of spine was the rationale for them caving to every major National Security issue like torture, illegal wiretapping, and Iraq, I'm now much more inclined to give credence to the following spelled out by Jonathan Turley last night on Countdown:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2113454...274098#25274098
Top Dems. were a part of this, and have colluded with the Bush Administration as part of the Gang of Eight (Rockefeller, Pelosi, Hoyer, forget the last Dem.). They were involved, period. And they would have likely been held accountable just as much as Bush and the GOP for their complicity in the illegal wiretapping. Whether or not they were "pressured" into it by the times and momentum the Administration had combating terrorism post-911 is wholly fucking irrelevant. They should have stood up for the principle, and caved like the little cowards that they are.
And by the way, if this second conclusion is the case, which I'm more inclined to think it is now, I owe Q5 an apology. Some time ago I believe he argued that the hands of the Dems. were just as dirty on this one as Bush, and I disbelieved him. Ugh, how things come full circle.
The last logical conclusion is perhaps even scarier but nonetheless more infuriating - the Dems. are doing this to keep this kind of sweeping Executive authority on warrantless surveillance for themselves should they win the White House. If this is indeed the case, that should infuriate you longtime Bush supporters and give you a bit of a pause as to what exactly our Congress is doing in order to get this Administration and the telecos off the hook for their prior illegal activities. It should scare you fucking straight.
So actions to be taken by me, and perhaps yourself:
1. A pushback has begun, and the coalition that's being created is a very interesting one involving various progressive, civil libertarians, and former Ron Paul internet fundraisers. You can see the first ad that's been created and will be displayed in the WaPost against Steny Hoyer here:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/#postid-updateA6
The group is called Strange Bedfellows, and by a small coalition of bloggers have already raised $285,000 inside of 72 hours. You can contribute here:
http://www.actblue.com/page/fisa
The action of this coalition is simple - targeting the little turds who supported this bill, including vulnerable Democrats who are fighting for re-election.
2. The Mrs. and I have officially registered as Independents. We are no longer Democrats, and will now give more weight to the BEST candidate instead of one who has a particular party affiliate. Honestly I was already leaning this way because of how fucking sick I am of this corrupt, spineless Democratic Congress. Plus I already vote this way locally regardless - I've voted for numerous local Republicans and will continue to do so if I see them as the better candidate.
Does this mean I won't vote for Obama? Hardly. There's no Republican running for President that even remotely appealed, outside of maybe a few qualities in Ron Paul. And while I'm also incredibly pissed off at Obama for also supporting this horrible bill in the House:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/20/155839/542
(you jackass, Obama)
His negatives still do not even hold a candle to the negatives I see in McCain personally. I'll save that rant for another day, however. Just wanted to share some thoughts on the FISA shenanigans.
...lame duck
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo ...lame duck |
| quote: |
| What gives? Why did Obama stay silent for so long, and why did he finally offer such a muted response to the bill? The answer is simple: Barrack Obama plans to be the next President of the United States. Once he becomes President, he will be in the same position as George W. Bush: he wants all the power he needs to protect the country. Moreover, he will be the beneficiary of a Democratic-controlled Congress, and he wants to get some important legislation passed in his first two years in office. Given these facts, why in the world would Obama oppose the current FISA compromise bill? If it's done on Bush's watch, he doesn't have to worry about wasting political capital on it in the next year. Perhaps it gives a bit too much power to the executive. But he plans to be the executive, and he can institute internal checks within the Executive Branch that can keep it from violating civil liberties as he understands them. And not to put too fine a point on it, once he becomes president, he will likely see civil liberties issues from a different perspective anyway. So, in short, from Obama's perspective, what's not to like? Most Americans don't realize that the FISA compromise comes in two parts. The first part greatly alters FISA by expanding the executive's ability to wiretap and engage in much broader searches of communications than were permissible under the law before. It essentially gives congressional blessing to some but not all of what the executive was doing under President Bush. President Obama will like having Congress authorize these new powers. He'll like it just fine. People aren't paying as much attention to this part of the bill. But they should, because it will define the law of surveillance going forward. It is where your civil liberties will be defined for the next decade. Part II, by contrast, is the part that everyone has gotten up in arms about. It creates effective immunity for telecom companies. It makes perfect sense for Obama to criticize this part of the bill. That's because he doesn't need it as much as he needs the first part, and his base really really dislikes it. True, it might be nice to have retroactive immunity for the players who he will be working with in the future. But remember, he expects to be President, and he figures that his OLC and Justice Department can offer sufficient assurances of legality going forward based on the changes in the first part of the bill. So, let's sum up: Congress gives the President new powers that Obama can use. Great. (This is change we can believe in). Obama doesn't have to expend any political capital to get these new powers. Also great. Finally, Obama can score points with his base by criticizing the retroactive immunity provisions, which is less important to him going forward than the new powers. Just dandy. It should now be clear why the Obama campaign has taken the position it has taken. And given what I have just said, Obama's supporters should be pressing him less on the immunity provisions and more on the first part of the bill which completely rewrites FISA. Because, if he becomes president, he'll be the one applying and enforcing its provisions. If you really care about civil liberties in the National Surveillance State, you have to recognize that both parties will be constructing its institutions. The next President will be a major player in its construction, as important if not more important than George W. Bush ever was. That President will want more authority to engage in surveillance, and he'll be delighted for Congress to give it to him officially. http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/06/why-obama-kinda-likes-fisa-bill-but-he.html |
1. by all measurements this guy should be the lamest lame duck POTUS in the history of the universe.
2. the Dems are afraid of him and their own shadow?
3. Karl Rove is most definately behind this i can assure you.
i don't know, you can either believe that or believe whatever it is you've invested yourself into this entire time, but i hope you realize the Dems lied to you
that's pretty disappointing, but i cant say im totally shocked.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo 1. by all measurements this guy should be the lamest lame duck POTUS in the history of the universe. 2. the Dems are afraid of him and their own shadow? |
| quote: |
| 3. Karl Rove is most definately behind this i can assure you. |
| quote: |
| i don't know, you can either believe that or believe whatever it is you've invested yourself into this entire time, but i hope you realize the Dems lied to you |
Too bad there isn't a viable third party...
Yeah, I was pretty sad to read this 
What a cop-out, regardless of the motive behind it. So much was made of the whole lawsuits and privacy issue, but now to just dust it under the rug like this?
Weak.
the gaffe-prone, media darling freshman Senator from Illinois will reverse his long held (3 years?) stance on this as well.
this, and his latest reversal on campaign financing, can only make one come to the obvious conclusion he is not a man of principle AT ALL!
f**k Obama. f**k him right in his ass. we haven't seen this kind of political oppurtunism since the Clintons. how f**king ironic is that?
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo the gaffe-prone, media darling freshman Senator from Illinois will reverse his long held (3 years?) stance on this as well. this, and his latest reversal on campaign financing, can only make one come to the obvious conclusion he is not a man of principle AT ALL! f**k Obama. f**k him right in his ass. we haven't seen this kind of political oppurtunism since the Clintons. how f**king ironic is that? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo the gaffe-prone, media darling freshman Senator from Illinois will reverse his long held (3 years?) stance on this as well. this, and his latest reversal on campaign financing, can only make one come to the obvious conclusion he is not a man of principle AT ALL! f**k Obama. f**k him right in his ass. we haven't seen this kind of political oppurtunism since the Clintons. how f**king ironic is that? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You're going to reach a bit out of bounds on this one if you want to start swinging the words "political opportunism" and "not a man of principle." While I'm certainly upset with his stance on this, his actions are a far cry to the shit your party's candidate has done recently. He's flip-flopped more times than Kerry, and the summer's just starting. As for campaign financing, tell ya what, when McCain actually abides by campaign financing rules like a "man of principle" was supposed to do (hint, the FEC is looking into his financing during the primaries as well as his wifey flying him around - that's a no-no), then I'll join the griping about Obama going back on his word and opting out. Otherwise McCain has absolutely nothing to bitch about. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton If McCain wins the presidency (which he won't), we'll be the laughing stock of the world... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo right because what "your world" thinks is sooooooo important. yes, your world. not "the world", your world. huge difference. anyways this thread is about political oppurtunism. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo i'll be out of bounds when and if McCain opts out of public financing. then you'll have a point. |
| quote: |
| "She used the jet on several trips last year that included campaign-related activity but never got campaign reimbursement, according to flight-tracking records and campaign-finance reports verified by the McCain campaign. At the New York fund-raiser, she spoke on stage, warming up the audience for her husband. If the campaign had paid for Mrs. McCain's trip to New York and three others that appear to have included some campaign work, it would likely have cost a total of about $15,000, the equivalent of first-class fare for the trips combined." ...."Jan Baran, a Republican campaign lawyer, said the campaign should have paid. 'I don't know why they want to fight it,' he said. 'The chutzpah is not that they're not paying for this trip, it's that they're using a corporate airplane at a highly discounted rate.'" http://online.wsj.com/article_email...NzcxNDc4Wj.html |
| quote: |
| "The nation's top federal election official told Sen. John McCain yesterday that he cannot immediately withdraw from the presidential public financing system as he had requested, a decision that threatens to dramatically restrict his spending until the general election campaign begins in the fall� Mason notified McCain that the commission had not granted his Feb. 6 request to withdraw from the presidential public financing system. Washington Post - 2/22/08 |
| quote: | ||
| As The Washington Post reported on Saturday, John McCain's campaign struck a canny deal with a bank in December. If his campaign tanked, public funds would be there to bail him out. But if he emerged as the nominee, there'd be no need for public financing, since the contributions would come flowing. It's an arrangement that no one has ever tried before. And it appears that McCain, who has built his reputation on campaign finance reform, was gaming the system. Or as a campaign finance expert who preferred to remain anonymous told me, referring to the prominent role that lobbyists have as advisers to his campaign, "This places McCain�s grandstanding on public financing in a new light. True reformers believe public financing is a way to replace the lobbyists� influence, not a slush fund that the lobbyists use to pay off campaign debts." Here's the back story. As of December, McCain was still enrolled in the public financing system, but had yet to actually receive any public matching funds. The Federal Election Commission had certified that the campaign would be receiving $5.8 million in public funds. But they wouldn't get that money for a couple more months. In need of even more cash beyond the $3 million loan he'd already secured from a Maryland bank (he'd taken out a life insurance policy as collateral), the McCain campaign was stuck in a bind. They needed more money, but the bank needed collateral. The promise of those public matching funds (to the tune of more than $5 million) was the only collateral the campaign could offer. But there was a problem with that. Using that promised money as collateral would have bound McCain to the public financing system, according to FEC rules. And the McCain camp wanted to avoid that, because the system limits campaigns to spending $54 million in the primary (through August). That would mean McCain would get seriously outspent by the Democratic nominee through the summer. (McCain has separately pledged to enroll in the system for the general election; that would give him $85 million in taxpayer funds for use after the party convention through Election Day but bar other contributions.) So here's what the McCain campaign did. They struck a deal with the bank that simultaneously allowed his campaign to secure public funds if necessary, but did not compel his campaign to stay in the public system if fundraising went well (i.e. if he won the nomination). As McCain's lawyer told the Post, "We very carefully did not do that." He was not promising to remain in the system -- he was promising to drop out of the system, and then opt back in if things went poorly. In that event, the $5.8 million would still be waiting for him. And he'd just hang around to collect it, even if he'd gotten drubbed in New Hampshire and the following states. You can see the agreement here. The relevant paragraph is on page two. Sizing it up, Mark Schmitt writes at Tapped:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsme...ked_on_taxp.php |
| quote: |
| everyone knows, as well as you, that campaign financing during national primaries is f**ked up beyond belief. it's a system essentially with no rules and little accountability at this time. |
| quote: |
| it's the general election that matters the most and an oppurtunity that Obama couldn't resist. you can't say with any certainty McCain would do the same. he won't. |
| quote: |
| and about the FISA law, are you any closer now in thinking that maybe it was the right thing to do? if somehow you're not. if for some reason, which i can't help but think anything but selfish and il-informed reasons, you still think what Congress did was the wrong thing to do, don't you think every defence you put up for the current Democrat leadership was a total waste of your time? |
| quote: |
| the Democrat leadership you've been defending care nothing, will say anything to you to get power. read my sig if you think i'm playing. the Clintons should have been a huge red flag, do you honestly think Obama is any different? hell no. |
| quote: |
| The excuse that we must sit by quietly and allow him to do these things with no opposition so that he can win is itself a corrupted and self-destructive mentality. That mindset has no end. Once he's elected, it will transform into: "It's vital that Obama keeps his majority in Congress so you have to keep quiet until after the 2010 midterms," after which it will be: "It's vital that Obama is re-elected so you have to keep quiet until after 2012," at which point the process will repeat itself from the first step. Quite plainly, those are excuses to justify mindless devotion, not genuine political strategies. Having said all of that, the other extreme -- declaring that Obama is now Evil Incarnate, no better than John McCain, etc. etc. -- is no better. Obama is a politician running for political office, driven by all the standard, pedestrian impulses of most other people who seek and crave political power. It's nothing more or less than that, and it is just as imperative today as it was yesterday that the sickly right-wing faction be permanently removed from power and that there is never any such thing as the John McCain Administration (as one commenter ironically noted yesterday, at the very least, Obama is far more likely to appoint Supreme Court Justices who will rule that the bill Obama supports is patently unconstitutional). http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenw...bama/index.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Obviously world opinion matters nothing to a hardline nationalist such as yourself. Obama's candidacy is doing wonders for our image abroad. If McCain wins the election (which again, he won't), that just solidifies the world opinion of an arrogant USA which seeks to continue the neoconservative agenda. But we don't have to worry about that do we? The neoconservatives destroyed their own movement by their gigantic failures. Glad to see you were there to root them on the whole time. You'll be sadly disappointed come November... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo again, you're conflating different "world opinions". glad to see you root for other people's opinions above what has made the country you live in the beacon of liberty and strength it's always been. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by MisterOpus1 In fact, he was gaming the public financing system from the get-go: |
| quote: |
| Furthermore, let's not kid ourselves here. Who in their right mind would decide on a limited amount of spending when they can raise oodles of cash by merely sneezing like Obama can? |
| quote: |
| And no, my stance on FISA has not changed at all. In fact, this has only made my stance stronger, as I have parted ways with a party and have stood up for something I believe in. I've examined the evidence of what occurred many times over, and my conclusions are the same as to what this Administration along with the telecos have done. And apparently, it seems that a handful of Dems. may very well have deliberately looked the other way in the process and needed to CYA on it as well. Think about that for a second - if that is what occurred, the fact that this whole ordeal may have been a big CYA moment for this Administration as well as some Dem leaders, how would that change my stance on it? The only thing that's different now is that the Dems. are wrong in supporting it as well. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo again, you're conflating different "world opinions". glad to see you root for other people's opinions above what has made the country you live in the beacon of liberty and strength it's always been. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton There is one consensus world opinion |
| quote: |
| So are you taking a unilateralist stance? F8ck what the world thinks, we do what we want, right? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo that is a horrible, horrible thought. that goes waaaaaaayyy beyond any other generalization posted here before...that includes all of hardcoretrancer's generalizations as well. i mean it's borderline fascist ffs. |
| quote: |
| no, actually. quite the opposite. what i'm saying, is that your "world opinion" so much more needlessly narrower than mine. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo everyone knows, as well as you, that campaign financing during national primaries is f**ked up beyond belief. it's a system essentially with no rules and little accountability at this time. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Krypton Reread what I wrote. I wrote CONSENSUS world opinion. I'm begging you to refute what I said. Give me a single poll in which US foreign policy is supported by a majority consensus of the world. |
| quote: |
| But I go by a consensus of world opinion done through scientific polling, which supports my argument. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov And yet John McCain has managed to break those "no rules" - pretty good for a man supposedly leading the campaign finance reform fight in Washington. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Q5echo yeah but your man has no principles, so... how did he break those "no rules"? |
| quote: |
| AP, WSJ left out FEC chairman's statement that McCain cannot withdraw from public financing system without FEC consent Summary: The Associated Press reported that Sen. John McCain "has decided not to accept the public matching funds," but that the Federal Election Commission "wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for [a] loan." The article did not mention that FEC Chairman David Mason has asserted that McCain cannot legally withdraw from the public finance system without FEC approval. Additionally, a Wall Street Journal article did not note that McCain may not be able to opt out of the public financing system. A March 21 Associated Press article reported that Sen. John McCain "has now spent $58.4 million in his primary bid, surpassing the $50 million limit he would have faced if he participated in the public financing system he had been certified to join." The article, by staff writer Jim Kuhnhenn, continued: "McCain has decided not to accept the public matching funds, but the FEC [Federal Election Commission] wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan." Kuhnhenn also reported that "[t]he Democratic National Committee [DNC] has filed a complaint with the FEC arguing McCain cannot withdraw from the public finance system without FEC approval." In fact, as Kuhnhenn himself has noted in previous articles, in addition to the DNC, FEC Chairman David Mason has also asserted that McCain cannot legally withdraw from the public finance system without such approval. In a February 21 AP article, Kuhnhenn reported: "The government's top campaign finance regulator says John McCain can't drop out of the primary election's public financing system until he answers questions about a loan he obtained to kickstart his once faltering presidential campaign. Federal Election Commission Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain this week, said the all-but-certain Republican nominee needs to assure the commission that he did not use the promise of public money to help secure a $4 million line of credit he obtained in November." Kuhnhenn also reported: "In his letter, Mason told McCain he would need the votes of four commissioners to accept his withdrawal from the system. 'The commission will consider your request at such a time as it has a quorum,' Mason wrote." Similarly, in a February 25 AP article, Kuhnhenn reported that "McCain's loan, from Fidelity & Trust Bank, has become a central issue in the Arizona senator's attempt to bypass the public financing system and the strict spending caps that come with it. Mason told McCain last week that the commission's approval was required and that he needed to explain the terms of his loan." Indeed, in his letter to McCain, Mason wrote: As you may be aware, in Advisory Opinion 2003-35 (Gephardt), the Commission balanced the voluntary nature of participating in the Matching Payment Program with the contractual obligations a candidate commits to once he seeks and receives Commissions certification of eligibility to receive payments under the Matching Payment Program. The Commission made clear that a candidate enters into a binding contract with the Commission when he executes the Candidate Agreements and Certifications. AO 2003-35. The Commission stated that it would withdraw a candidate's certifications upon written request, thus agreeing to rescind the contract, so long as the candidate: 1) had not received Matching Payment Program funds, and 2) had not pledged the certification of Matching Payment Program funds as "security for private financing." Id. Accordingly, we consider your letter as a request that the Commission withdraw its previous certifications. Just as 2 U.S.C. � 437c(c) required an affirmative vote of four Commissioners to make these certifications, it requires an affirmative vote of four Commissioners to withdraw them. Therefore, the Commission will consider your request at such time as it has a quorum. A February 22 Washington Post article discussing Mason's letter noted that "[k]nowingly violating the spending limit is a criminal offense that could put McCain at risk of stiff fines and up to five years in prison." Indeed, the Presidential Primary Matching Payment Account Act provides in 26 U.S.C. � 9035 that "[n]o candidate shall knowingly incur qualified campaign expenses in excess of the expenditure limitation applicable under section 320(b)(1)(A) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971." And 26 U.S.C. � 9042 states: "Any person who violates the provisions of section 9035 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both. Any officer or member of any political committee who knowingly consents to any expenditure in violation of the provisions of section 9035 shall be fined not more than $25,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both." In addition, in a March 21 Wall Street Journal article about McCain's February fundraising, staff writer Mary Jacoby reported that the McCain campaign "spent $8.8 million in February," and that, according to his FEC report, "in February, the McCain campaign repaid $923,000 of a $4 million bank loan he took out in November." But Jacoby did not note that McCain may not be able to opt out of the public financing system for the primary campaign after obtaining that loan, or that by spending $8.8 million that month, his campaign has exceeded the legal limit for spending that participants in the public financing system face. From the March 21 Associated Press article: Republican John McCain reported raising $11 million in February, a slight dip from January but still a better fundraising clip than he had last year. Now, as the presumed GOP nominee, McCain has embarked on an aggressive fundraising schedule in March to finance his campaign against the Democrats, whoever their nominee might be. McCain reported $8 million cash on hand -- $3 million of which is for the general election. At month's end, McCain still owed $3 million on a loan, but he paid that off this week, aides said. [...] [Sen. Barack] Obama, as the delegate and money leader in the race, has found himself staving off both [Sen. Hillary] Clinton and McCain in recent weeks. His campaign underscored the challenge in a fundraising appeal Thursday. "No one could have imagined it would go on this long, or that we'd have to fight this battle on two fronts at the same time," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe wrote in an e-mail to potential donors. "We've got to take on both Senator Clinton and Senator McCain at the same time." In a testament to the financial heft behind the Democrats, Obama and Clinton together spent more in a month than McCain has for the length of the yearlong campaign. McCain has now spent $58.4 million in his primary bid, surpassing the $50 million limit he would have faced if he participated in the public financing system he had been certified to join. McCain has decided not to accept the public matching funds, but the FEC wants him to assure regulators that he did not use the promise of public money as collateral for the loan. McCain and his lawyers said the loan was secured with other assets, thus freeing him to spend as much money as he wishes on his primary campaign. The Democratic National Committee has filed a complaint with the FEC arguing McCain cannot withdraw from the public finance system without FEC approval. The FEC for now can't act, however, because four of its six seats are vacant. While eschewing public funds for the primary, McCain has called on Obama to accept public financing with him for the fall campaign. Such a step would limit both candidates to about $85 million to be spent from September to Election Day in November. Obama has hedged, setting several conditions before he would consider taking public money. Few Democrats believe Obama should abandon his prodigious fundraising, which could generate far more than the public funding would permit. McCain is keeping his options open. Last month he filed documents to create a "compliance fund" -- an account used by publicly financed candidates so they can accept private donations to cover legal expenses and other exempted costs. The Wall Street Journal article, headlined "McCain Raised $11 Million in February," in its entirety: Sen. John McCain raised $11 million for his presidential primary bid in February, an amount far behind the Democratic contenders but reflecting the settled nature of the Republican race. The Arizona senator all but wrapped up the Republican nomination March 4 when former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee dropped out of the race following losses in the Ohio and Texas primaries. The McCain campaign spent $8.8 million in February, a report filed Thursday evening with the Federal Election Commission shows. In all, Sen. McCain has raised $59.6 million for his bid. He reported cash on hand of nearly $8 million and debts of $4.3 million. Democratic Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York were expected to report raising about $55 million and $35 million in the month, respectively. Their reports had not been filed with the FEC late Thursday. Also in February, the McCain campaign repaid $923,000 of a $4 million bank loan he took out in November, his report shows. However, a campaign official said the entire loan was repaid this week and the campaign's current debt is much lower than the amount reported for February. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.