Has McCain Run Afoul of Campaign Finance Laws?

Submitted by BlaiseP on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 12:14pm. Tags:

Politics

WaPo’s investigative newshounds seems to have dug up a bone.

The bundle of $2,300 and $4,600 checks that poured into Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign on March 12 came from an unlikely group of California donors: a mechanic from D&D Auto Repair in Whittier, the manager of Rite Aid Pharmacy No. 5727, the 30-something owners of the Twilight Hookah Lounge in Fullerton.

But the man who gathered checks from them is no stranger to McCain -- he shuttled the Republican on his private plane and held a fundraising event for the candidate at his house in Delray Beach, Fla.

Harry Sargeant III, a former naval officer and the owner of an oil-trading company that recently inked defense contracts potentially worth more than $1 billion, is the archetype of a modern presidential money man. 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.

After initially helping to raise money for former New York mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, a Republican, and Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sargeant, 50, has emerged as a major player in Florida fundraising for McCain. He has also become a conduit between McCain and Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), who was Sargeant's college fraternity brother and remains a close friend.

This isn’t a McCain is a Crook article. He’s not a crook, and every campaign seems to be afflicted with cockroaches of this sort. We’ve got a systemic problem in campaign finance, a class of bagmen like Harry Sargeant III. Remember Norman Hsu, the bagman who carried money for the Democrats? This Harry Sargeant III seems to be yet another manifestation of the problem inherent in straw donors and bundling.

But McCain, of all people, should be acutely aware of the appearance of evil after the Keating 5 scandal. I’m not sure this will get much play: it will doubtless get some coverage. The problem is, everyone’s gonna start in yelling at McCain, when it’s not his fault. Nobody should be collecting anyone else’s political donation, and it may be impossible to eliminate the straw donor from the political landscape. I’m not sure how to solve the problem.

Maybe this article will stir up some debate on how the situation has gotten this bad, and how we might back out of it. Our politicians have been reduced to whoredom, ever more beholden to special interests and the non-stop fundraising is demeaning. It’s undermining our democracy.

BlaiseP's blog
Login or register to post comments

Truly afoul was the WA Post reporting (#108241)

by Bird Dog on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 6:01pm

Note the correction at the top of the article:

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.

The issue of bundling is still out there, but the WA Post reporter can tie only one of those four donors to McCain, and Mosk got the facts wrong on all four donors. What was alleged to be a pattern was really a one-off. Interesting that the bundler bundled for two Republicans and one Democrat.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

)

Murkier (#108359)

by Spartacvs on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 11:23pm

and murkier.

GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.

(

| parent )

Look, I'd hoped to avoid this become a partisan rantfest. (#108257)

by BlaiseP on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 6:59pm

Got something to say about the problem instead of who got the money? It's obvious as a turd in a punchbowl Harry Sargeant III is a bagman for both parties. He didn't get that billion dollar contract to rip off the Air Force for jet fuel by accident. He's part of something Eisenhower warned us about, waay back when:

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Well, we have neither security nor liberty, but we do have the military-industrial complex, ripping us off individually and collectively. When these carpetbaggers are exposed, true to form, everyone wants to make it political. It's not. It's corporatism. It's oligarchy. They're pimps who whore out our politicians. I went to considerable pains to say this isn't McCain's fault. He couldn't have known about every damned contribution he gets. But he rides around in this Harry Sargeant III's airplane, they know each other. Harry brings in the money, and if McCain doesn't ask too many questions, well, I am not going to fault McCain here. Or Clinton. Or Giuliani. Or any politician for that matter, they're all reduced to grovelling and begging and schmoozing and eating the hors d'oeuvres and mugging with a hundred well-heeled jackasses. He's the main course, and they will all dine well on the bacon he brings home, and goddamnit he'd better bring home some bacon or there won't be any more of those hors d'oeuvres.

(

| parent )

Read what I wrote (#108267)

by Bird Dog on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 7:51pm

Quote: "The issue of bundling is still out there..."

And I don't see how goddawful and factually deficient reporting has to be a "partisan rantfest".

My own ideas on campaign finance are more libertarian. Contributions should be reported immediately, accurately and transparently, with major financial penalties for transgressions. If there isn't bundling, then money is going to be accumulated by other means and methods. Such is the nature of the beast.

"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton

(

| parent )

Your point was the reporter could only tie one to McCain (#108282)

by BlaiseP on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 8:22pm

and what you found interesting was that this was a "one-off". And, of course, Democrats were involved. And WaPo got its facts wrong. Everyone else I'm reading, following this story, all the ranting is just annoying. They're all missing the point. Even WaPo seems to throw McCain's picture up there, as if this was McCain. How about a picture of this gonif Harry Sargeant III? Surely someone can drum up a picture of him.

Well, at least you did come up with a statement about transparency. Which is good. I'd like to see some truly draconian penalties attached to this sort of shenanigans. Someone should cancel Harry Sargeant III's rippyofski jet fuel contract contract tomorrow and send him to prison.

Everyone wants his picture taken with the politician. Ever think about it from the politician's point of view? So someone goes out and gets a degree in law or political science or whatever, is motivated to a life in politics, using elected power to change things for the better, and what does he end up doing? Schmoozing with these greasy crooks every night, just to drum up money for a campaign. I'm not sure it's electoral reform we need, but an overhaul of our contracting system and these revolving doors where you can't tell the lobbyist from the politician about half the time. Our whole democracy is at stake, and I don't think I'm overstating the proposition when I say these bundlers and bagmen and lobbyists and PACs are the problem. Rich guys circumvent all the laws on political donations because it's their money to start with.

What's next? The Big Pharma President? We've already had an Oil President for the last 8 years, and by god those oilcos are making money hand over fist. And a Contractor Vice Prez, Halliburton and KBR and those outfits are doing land office business. The Dems aren't one whit better: Harry Reid should be in jail. I was going through a defense appropriations bill a while back, and found one of Nancy Pelosi's earmarks, to turn some little fort at the base of the Golden Gate Bridge into some conference center. Shameless. Beyond shameless, a political donation is the best investment anyone can make: the return on investment is staggering. For a few thousand dollars, you can get a billion dollar contract like Harry Sargeant III.

(

| parent )

You mention the solution (#108185)

by Blue Neponset on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 12:27pm

Nobody should be collecting anyone else’s political donation...

Make bundling illegal and it will be harder to commit this kind of fraud. There is really no good reason to have a middle man collecting political contributions.

But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie

(

)

Baby, bathwater. (#108189)

by Punditus Maximus on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 12:35pm

If I hold a fundraiser and pass the money along, that's essentially the same thing. I don't see a good way to separate the two.

This is precisely the sort of thing that the politicization of the DOJ was supposed to protect the Repubs from.

It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.

(

| parent )

It could be done (#108191)

by Blue Neponset on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 12:55pm

Give out stamped envelopes for people to put their checks into at the fundraiser and require a separate check to pay for the meal/room/entertainment/etc. I will admit it is a cumbersome solution, but this bundler fraud stuff keeps rearing its ugly head.

But she's a queen, and such are queens
that your laughter is sucked in their brains. -D. Bowie

(

| parent )

You're both on the right track, I think (#108205)

by BlaiseP on Wed, 08/06/2008 - 1:47pm

I wonder if we're better-served to cut down on the campaign season and eliminate the problem entirely. Buckley v. Valeo is a bit long in the tooth, but it's a starting point for this debate. Burger, writing his sorta-dissent says

For reasons set forth more fully later, I dissent from those parts of the Court's holding sustaining the statutory provisions (a) for disclosure of small contributions, (b) for limitations on contributions, and (c) for public financing of Presidential campaigns. In my view, the Act's disclosure scheme is impermissibly broad and violative of the First Amendment as it relates to reporting contributions in excess of $10 and $100. The contribution limitations infringe on First Amendment liberties and suffer from the same infirmities that the Court correctly sees in the expenditure ceilings. The system for public financing of Presidential campaigns is, in my judgment, an impermissible intrusion by the Government into the traditionally private political process.

More broadly, the Court's result does violence to the intent of Congress in this comprehensive scheme of campaign finance. By dissecting the Act bit by bit, and casting off vital parts, the Court fails to recognize that the whole of this Act is greater than the sum of its parts. [424 U.S. 1, 236] Congress intended to regulate all aspects of federal campaign finances, but what remains after today's holding leaves no more than a shadow of what Congress contemplated. I question whether the residue leaves a workable program.

(

| parent )

Recent Diaries