by Mark Silva
Sen. John McCain, whose name shares co-billing on legislation that was supposed to tame the influence of “soft money’’ on campaigns, now finds himself benefiting from the help of an independent group promoting his candidacy for president.
McCain says he doesn’t want the help – and disavows any support for these supporters.
“I have long opposed the use of soft money by independent groups trying to influence elections,’’ McCain said in a statement released today. “It is a position I hold without reservation. Anyone who believes they could assist my campaign by exploiting a loophole in campaign finance laws is doing me and our country a disservice.''
The Foundation for a Secure and Prosperous America was created by McCain supporters, including adman Rick Reed, a coproducer of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads in the 2004 independent campaign against Democratic Sen. John Kerry.
They have ignored calls from the Arizona senator, co-sponsor of the McCain-Feingold bill that capped big-money campaign contributions, to withdraw ads in South Carolina that are portraying McCain in flattering ways.
Republican rival Mitt Romney today called the foundation’s ads "an entire end-run on any effort to control campaign spending and offer transparency.
“It is the height of irony that the author of McCain-Feingold now has his supporters raising, apparently, vast sums of money, well above the contribution limits that normal citizens see, to support his campaign," Romney said.
But McCain maintains he has nothing to do with this unauthorized campaign.
“I ask all of my donors and supporters, including Mr. Reed, to cease and desist immediately from supporting any independent expenditures that might be construed as benefiting my campaign indirectly,’’ McCain said. “If you respect me or my principles, I urge you to refrain from using my name and image in any ads or other activities.
“I will not win this election, nor would I want to win it, by acquiescing in anyone's attempt to put my campaign before my principles,’’ he said. “I will run on my principles, my record, and my vision for our country, and I will trust the voters to make the right decision.''
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
I like McCain. I just wish I could agree with him on more issues.
http://www.rudy-urbanlegend.com/
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | November 12, 2007 3:29 PM
Which part of Freedom of Speech doesn't John McCain get?
I've always felt that the McCain-Feingold limits on certain types of advertising in the run up to an election should be found to be unconstitutional limits of Freedom of Speech. The Supreme Court seems to have agreed in FEC Vs. Wisconsin Right to Life.
Posted by: AJF | November 12, 2007 3:38 PM
It's McCain's own fault that he's losing, he never should have sold himself out to the Neocon fantasyland that the Chimp in Chief and Dark Dick live in.
If John McCain would have run the campaign that he ran in 2000 this year he would already have a huge lead for the Republican nomination for President, especially when you consider all the brainless drones that currently make up the Republican Party nominee's this time around.
Posted by: John E | November 12, 2007 3:38 PM
“Which part of Freedom of Speech doesn't John McCain get?”
* * * * *
Posted by: AJF | November 12, 2007 3:38 PM
Honestly? I don’t think he gets any of it. In fact, the so-called “liberals” on the Supreme Court don’t seem to get it either.
The plurality of the court in FEC v. Wisconsin Right To Life consisted of the so-called “strict constructionists” – Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas, whom the Left love to vilify. But they were the ones who defended the right of political speech, and held the “Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002” (the “BCRA”) could not constitutionally be used to criminalize “issue ads” in a manner consistent with the First Amendment. In fact, the Scalia, Kennedy and Thomas would have voted to overrule McConnell v. FEC, to the extent it held certain sections of the BCRA were not unconstitutional on their face. In contrast, it was the so-called liberals – Souter, Ginsberg, Breyer and Stevens – who believed “issue ads” could be criminalized without violating the First Amendment. So much for “liberals” standing up for “that which liberates.”
I find it amazing that any governmental restriction on the content of political speech could be viewed as consonant with the First Amendment. Even among those who believe in a “sliding scale” of speech is worthy of protection, political speech has always ranked the highest, and has always been subject to the greatest protection. This is because the free exchange of ideas has always been central to functioning of an open and free political processes.
By definition, then, there can be no justifiable interest, much less a compelling interest, for the government to abridge political speech. The need to curb the influence of big-money interests in politics can be met by encouraging more people to pool their funds in PACs of their own choosing so they can have their views heard too. More speech has always been the traditional remedy for speech that one doesn’t like, especially in the arena of political speech.
In any event, McCain’s cluelessness in this matter is just one more reason I find him unfit to serve as President. Its bad enough that we’ve had Duh’bya around for eight years trashing the Constitution. We don’t need more of it now.
Ron Paul in ’08.
Posted by: John W. | November 12, 2007 7:06 PM
Senator McCain has a wealth of knowledge and experience to contribute to American politics (politically, militarily and personally). I always felt that way, and wrote an opinion in New York's Legislative Gazette prior to his New York State Republican primary against now President Bush before the 2000 election calling upon Labor to endorse him in that primary. However, he just may be eight years too late as it seems that the major candidates from both parties (and just time itself) have passed him by.
Posted by: Stephen Sherokey | November 12, 2007 8:43 PM