ROCKY RIVER, Ohio — The Democratic Party filed a complaint against Sen. John McCain on Monday, calling on regulators to investigate the Republican presidential candidate’s decision to withdraw from the primary’s public financing system.

In a letter to the Federal Election Commission, the Democratic National Committee contends McCain cannot reject the public funds — and accompanying spending limits — because he faces questions over a loan he obtained last year.

McCain notified the commission early this month that he did not intend to accept $5.8 million in federal funds for the primary. That would free him from spending caps that would restrict his ability to campaign between now and the GOP national convention in September.

FEC Chairman David Mason, in a letter to McCain last week, said the senator must explain a $4 million line of credit he secured last year and get approval from four of the commission’s six members before withdrawing from the public financing system.

USA Today

The controversy here is that McCain’s campaign took a questionable loan out that the Democrats say fall under the umbrella of the public financing rules.  McCain could easily clear this up by getting a ruling from the FEC to allow him to withdraw from using public funds, but there are four vacancies on the FEC due to the Democrats holding up Bush’s nominations so there can be no quorum called.

It’s rather ironic that the man who authored McCain-Feingold is now getting smacked by similar campaign finance rules.

After writing a comment listing my beef with Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee here, I found an article by Mark Levin at National Review Online reminding conservatives how much Sen. McCain has ticked off conservatives, lest we forget:

The McCain domestic record is a disaster. To say he fought spending, most particularly earmarks, is to nibble around the edges and miss the heart of the matter. For starters, consider:

McCain-Feingold — the most brazen frontal assault on political speech since Buckley v. Valeo.

McCain-Kennedy — the most far-reaching amnesty program in American history.

McCain-Lieberman — the most onerous and intrusive attack on American industry — through reporting, regulating, and taxing authority of greenhouse gases — in American history.

McCain-Kennedy-Edwards — the biggest boon to the trial bar since the tobacco settlement, under the rubric of a patients’ bill of rights.

McCain-Reimportantion of Drugs — a significant blow to pharmaceutical research and development, not to mention consumer safety (hey Rudy, pay attention, see link).

….
As chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, McCain was consistently hostile to American enterprise, from media and pharmaceutical companies to technology and energy companies.
McCain also led the Gang of 14, which prevented the Republican leadership in the Senate from mounting a rule change that would have ended the systematic use (actual and threatened) of the filibuster to prevent majority approval of judicial nominees.

Levin also takes on Sen. McCain’s “saving grace,” his defense strength, and points out significant flaws in his approach in this realm as well.

Conservatives beware. If nothing else, just remember how ticked off you were in 2007 about the Senate and President’s attempt to circumvent the clear wishes of the American people and pass a reckless “comprehensive” immigration bill, with McCain leading the charge.

A good joke piece on what the future for gov’t regulation on blogs might mean is a must read here. That being said as funny and far fetched as it seems at first, there is an eery and frightening possibility of truth to it.

Well I attended the panel discussion put on by the Advisory Committee to the Internet Caucus. It confirmed all my fears, and assauged none of my doubts.

The panelists were Chairman Scott Thomas of the FEC, Mike Krempasky of Red State, and John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. The moderator was Michael Cornfield of the Pew Internet & American Life Project.

The one major concern that this whole panel raised for me is that no one, not even the FEC Chairman really had a grasp on what exactly the proposed rules will do. The rule proposal is set to come out in the Federal Register around April 4th, and then there will be a 60 day window for comment on them. Chairman Thomas seemed to be generally interested and concerned in the process, and I believe he has good intentions in this, but if he doesn’t even know what effect these rules will have then we must all be very concerned.

Mike Krempasky did a good job pointing out a lot of the murky areas that are likely to pop up due to the implications of the law. I think in the end the only real solution to the problem is the repeal of McCain-Feingold (a terribly unconstitutional bill that should have never been signed… but I digress), but that is unlikely to happen. As such, Chairman Thomas repeatedly stated that begining on the 4th the FEC would be looking for written comment from as many qualified peopel as possible. I would encourage all bloggers to participate. More details as they come in.

I will be attending a panel discussion by the Internet Advisory Caucus on the FEC & The Internet. Mike Krempasky of Red State will be on the panelists along with the Chairman of the FEC. I will post about it once I get back. Should be interesting.