Judge Dismisses DNC Lawsuit Against McCain

McCain got his ballot access by opting out of public finacing; (He NEVER got any signatures to place him on the ballot like everybody else had to) Then when his fundraising dried up, he decided to take public financing and be restricted by campaign finance restrictions that he pushed for with his draconian campaign finance laws. Then when he saw that he was losing money he attempted to opt out of the public financing system altogether by giving himself a personal loan, even though his own law states, he can't legally do that. Simply put he wrote the law, and then willingly chose to break it when it didn't suit him. As somebody who worked tirelessly to pass campign finance and elect John McCain in 2000, I can say in no uncertain terms that John has willingly broke the law and deserves to be punished for it, especially considering the fact that his laws have aided even Hilliary Clinton with the fact that an anti-Hilliary documentary where SHE is on video AND audiotape knowingly violating campaign fund raising laws can't be shown thanks to John. This documentary is considered third party political speeech thanks to John's law and CAN'T be shown on any network or even public broadcasting. So this is certainly BIGGER, and has far more reaching consequences than John McCain for all you GOP partisans out there. Thanks to these draconian laws, only the party is allowed to run issue ads that gloss over if not completely distort to the positive (i.e. LIE) the canidates record, and doesn't NOT allow for a contrary view (and in most cases, the TRUTH) to counter their empty slogans and platitudes. If you were wondering how Bush got reelected, well this certainly helped. And it will help Clinton Obama, and McCain lie their way all the way to the White House, without people being informed enough to hold them accountable for their own record. This is bigger than the canidates, this allows the, to keep us in the dark with only the rantings of the corporate, controlled mainstream media and the cvanidates themselves, to tell us wht THEY think we should know about them, before we decide to vote for our next President. If your just fine and okay with THAT, then I think you should seriously consider staying home and not bothering to vote for the most favored canidate of the corporate, controlled press, and the men who fund and dictate their content.

I think it would be helpful for many to do a quick search on "federal election commission quorum" to learn a bit more about what's going on. It doesn't take long and it is a microcosm of what is wrong with the current administration. I hope whoever becomes President next year has some sense of honesty or fair play.

Typical Obama. Will do anything he can to get opponents taken off the ballot. Will pry into people's personal divorse records, will have long time advocates for the black community like Alice Palmer thrown off the ballot. What a piece of....this Obama is.

Good anything that hurts the dems if fine by me.

Also, for the record, the DNC filed this suit against McCain on the grounds of enforcing election law that he claims to support and then repeatedly violates or stretches. Neither Obama nor Clinton had anything to do with the filing. So for those chiming in with the typical slime of "Barack did this..." blah, blah at least do some reading and try posting accurate info. You want to blame an individual Democrat, at least get the right one and mention Howard Dean.

The purpose of the suit was political and apparently designed to bring attention to two things: 1. John McCain's slippery fundraising in the early-going of the campaign, and 2. The absence of a quorum on the FEC. It seems more designed for the latter and seems to have forced Bush's hand into at least nominating people. He, however, shows his typical disdain for all things regulatory by nominating ineffective or purposefully destructive people.

Judge Bates of course made the right decision in counseling the DNC to follow the rule of law.

The best strategy to follow at this point is for President Bush to retain Hans von Spakovsky as a nominee for the FEC. The other would be for Mitch McConnell to knock out one Democratic nominee for the FEC – possibly this week.

yea.. theDNC is pretty much been dead wrogn on everything this primary season! John Mccain is entitlied not to follow the public financing system because neither will Obama because he has so many millions from unnamed sources

I've provided evidence to my comments, where's your evidence concerning your beliefs? Sorry if the facts are getting in the way of your delusional rants, sometimes the truth isn't convenient. Just as the McCain voters supported Bush in 2000 after spouting out that they would never, the overwhelming majority of Clinton supporters will cast their ballot for Obama in November when faced with the decision of four more years of failed Bush policies as the alternative.

Staniam,

Right on! I find it hilarious that a guy from the most corrupt political machine in the country (Chicago democrat politics) says he's going to clean up Washington DC!! LOL.

Clean up your own backyard Obama. Then'll we give you the big job. Geeeze, what a fraud.

Kevin, keep telling yourself the Clinton people will "come around" but they won't. And comparing this to 2000 is comparing apples to oranges.

But nice try.

The DNC is so embarrassing.

yep , that's how obama plans to "win".. he'll sue.

DId you all know that's how he got his state senate seat?
He sued everyone else off the ballot.

He doesn't believe in democracy.

And trettin, again providing false information. He got his senate seat by winning the election. Alice Palmer, the incumbant, had removed herself from the ballot, deciding against attempting to run for re-election. Late in the senate race she attempted to re-enter the campaign and force Obama to take his name off the ballot to replace hers. He disagreed and his name remained on the ballot, following which he won the election. A little different story once all the details are added in.

Thd DNC is just more of the same old politics, and Obama is being rocked in the cradle by Pelosi, Dean, Kennedy, Kerry, ... the list of old-school democrats goes on. Same old politics. Obama is no different.

Or, if you're not a raging pessimist, you could say that the intelligent Democrats have seen the wave of the future coming and have decided to embrace a new type of politics. Nothing in his approach to politics in the last 12 years has been conventional, old-school approach which is why the establishment doesn't know how to win elections against him. There's a reason the republican party would rather face Clinton, they can use old-style politics and win against her.

The day after New Year's 1996, operatives for Barack Obama filed into a barren hearing room of the Chicago Board of Election Commissioners.

There they began the tedious process of challenging hundreds of signatures on the nominating petitions of state Sen. Alice Palmer, the longtime progressive activist from the city's South Side. And they kept challenging petitions until every one of Obama's four Democratic primary rivals was forced off the ballot.

Fresh from his work as a civil rights lawyer and head of a voter registration project that expanded access to the ballot box, Obama launched his first campaign for the Illinois Senate saying he wanted to empower disenfranchised citizens.

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign puts a hard edge on the image he has honed throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

1) Clinton
2) McCain
No obama, not now, not ever.

And the continuing problem with your comment is that the signatures that were challenged by the Obama campaign were found to be fraudulant and were removed for that reason. So, by Obama running on a platform for clean politics, should these signatures that were found to be clearly invalid and fraudulant been allowed to stand and count for the candidates that were following this pattern of political behavior? According to you, then, he should have ignored the problems with the political campaign and just let them slide by hoping that they didn't affect the upcoming vote. The signatures were legally invalid and were deemed as such by an impartial judge, seems that the problem with Chicago politics was with the person that gathered the fraudulant signatures, not the person that corrected them.

Bravo Kevin, nice research.

Either Hillary or Obama had made A SOLID agreement to support whoever that wins the DEM. Presidential nominee. As such No one on both sides should be making unnecessary noice about not supporting either of the two who may win Fairly and Gainfully.

There is the need to grow over wining or loosing, after all we are all DEMOCRATS, who understand the Biggest price at stake is to vote EN-MASS at the fall for whoever the winner comes the end of June between Hillary and Obama. Let leave sentiment and Egotism apart and work for our BELOVED DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

Long Live to ALL American Democrats, the Independents and Truely Converted Republicans and best of LUCK to come.