McCain and his Finances: Retitled: MSM Losers

UPDATE: Here’s a correction to the story below:

An earlier version of this story about campaign donations that Florida businessman Harry Sargeant III raised for Sen. John McCain, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton incorrectly identified three individuals as being among the donors Sargeant solicited on behalf of McCain. Those donors — Rite Aid manager Ibrahim Marabeh, and lounge owners Nadia and Shawn Abdalla — wrote checks to Giuliani and Clinton, not McCain. Also, the first name of Faisal Abdullah, a McCain donor, was misspelled in some versions of the story.

So – other than all the examples given, this is a story about McCain?
McCain is off the original very very iffy hook.

Original post:
This story in the WAPO reeks if true.

Is John McCain pulling a Clinton?

The law forbids high-level supporters from writing huge checks, but with help from friends in the Middle East and the former chief of the CIA’s bin Laden unit — who now serves as a consultant to his company — Sargeant has raised more than $100,000 for three presidential candidates from a collection of ordinary people, several of whom professed little interest in the outcome of the election.

I don’t even mind tons of money in an election as long as it’s disclosed.

But John McCain is the freaking author of the infamous McCain-Feingold Bill making it a crime to give your money away where you want to during an election.

Laws being “laws” where it concerns money, there now are people like Harry Sargeant III who apparently can get others who a) are not registered to vote and b) don’t give a rip about politics and c) have regular Joe jobs to contribute the most that is allowed through McCain-Feingold.

I need to go wash up. The sleaze here has come right through my keyboard. May you not know about this Mr. McCain. And now that you do, make it stop.

Or we’ll all end up voting for Paris Hilton.

2 thoughts on “McCain and his Finances: Retitled: MSM Losers

  1. A. You don’t have to be registered to vote to give money to any candidate or race.
    B. You don’t have to tell newspaper reporters whether you “give a rip” about politics or not to give money.
    C. Regular joes should give money — that is the whole point of McCain Feingold — to make sure it is not just fatcat lobbyists.
    D. Foreigners can’t give money — the Wash Post implies a foreign connection and quotes “funny named” people who appear to be regular joe Americans.
    E. Companies can’t give money and according to the Wash Post none have.
    F. Campaigns have always relied on “fundraisers” like Mr. Sergeant to find people to give money; they generally rely on large networks of people so they can expand their reach.
    G. McCain-Feingold did not make it “illegal” for you to give your money to whoever you want during an election, it just laid out the rules for how you have to do it. Some of those rules appear to many people (including me) to limit your free speech as expressed by giving your money away as you please.

    Near as I can tell, this is a Wash Post attempt to make it appear as though the author of the McCain-Feingold law was skirting that intent of that law, but unfortunately for the Post, none of their examples or the story itself provide any evidence of that — it’s all just implied without evidence. I don’t believe for a minute that every person in this country who has “maxed out” to any candidate in this election necessarily intends to vote or believes in the candidate or cares about the outcome. I do believe people do it based on their own perceived self-interest — which may be because their cousin told them who was good or their union told them what to do or it was important for their future chances for an Administration job.

    I don’t like the politics of fundraising — but it is so far necessary. I don’t like McCain-Feingold and think that as a Presidential candidate, McCain is finding himself hamstrung by his own rules on occasion. I do not for a minute believe this article shows that. This article isn’t worth the paper it took to print it and certainly wasn’t worth the amount of indignation it raised with you.

  2. Thanks for the comment. It probably isn’t worth my indignation. But I too do not support McCain Feingold which was put into place because of the supposed spurious contributions done by people of “influence”.
    If the article is pointing out a direction that is contrary to McCain’s previous beliefs and laws, then yes, I am indignant.
    And while, no, none of these people were doing anything illegal as mentioned in the article, on the whole it leaves one to wonder what’s going on.

Comments are closed.