McCain a Maverick, yup! The proof is in the thread!

[FUZO]

TweetWHEN HAS OBAMA REACHED ON THE OTHER SIDE.WHAT THE FUK HAS HE DONE,NOTHING HE COULDNT DO ANYTHING FOR ILLINOIS



McCain a Maverick? Here’s some talking points.

Campaign finance reform is the common term for the political effort in the United States to change the involvement of money in politics, primarily in political campaigns.
Although attempts to regulate campaign finance by legislation date back to 1867, the first successful attempts nationally to regulate and enforce campaign finance originated in the 1970s. The Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) of 1972 required candidates to disclose sources of campaign contributions and campaign expenditure. It was amended in 1974 with the introduction of legal limits on contributions, and creation of the Federal Election Commission (FEC). It attempted to restrict the influence of wealthy individuals by limiting individual donations to $1000 and donations by Political Action Committees (PACs) to $5000. These specific election donations are known as ‘Hard money’. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as "McCain-Feingold," after its sponsors, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits of expenditure set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions (called "soft money") to national political parties. ‘Soft money’ also refers to funds spent by independent organizations that do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns.

What is the BCRA?

Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA, McCain–Feingold Act, Pub.L. 107-155, 116 Stat. 81, enacted 2002-03-27) is United States federal law that amended the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which regulates the financing of political campaigns. Its chief sponsors were Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ). The law became effective on 6 November 2002, and the new legal limits became effective on 1 January 2003.
As noted in McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, a United States Supreme Court ruling on the BCRA, the Act was designed to address two issues:
• The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion;
• The proliferation of issue ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.


Gang of 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Gang of 14 was a term coined to describe the bipartisan group of Senators in the 109th United States Congress who successfully negotiated a compromise in the spring of 2005 to avoid the deployment of the so-called nuclear option (or constitutional option) over an organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats. The nickname is a pun on the so-called Gang of Four who ruled China after the death of Chairman Mao.

The Democrats had been using the filibuster to prevent the confirmation of conservative appellate court candidates nominated by President George W. Bush. The informal group consisted of seven Republicans and seven Democrats led by Sens. Ben Nelson (D-Nebraska) and John McCain (R-Arizona). It became active again in July 2005, attempting to advise Bush on the choice of a nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. On November 3, 2005, the group met to discuss the nomination of Samuel Alito to the high court, but came to no conclusions, noting that the hearing process had only just begun in his case. On January 30, 2006, the members of the group unanimously supported a cloture vote in the Alito nomination, providing more than enough votes to prevent a filibuster.

The Gang of 14 signed an agreement, pertaining only to the 109th Congress, whereby the seven Democrats would no longer vote along with their party on filibustering judicial nominees (except in "extraordinary circumstances"), and in turn the seven Republicans would break with Bill Frist and the Republican leadership on voting for the "nuclear option." As the Republicans held a five vote Senate majority (55-45) in the 109th Congress, the agreement of these Senators in practical terms prevented the Republicans from winning a simple majority to uphold a change in the interpretation of Senate rules, and prevented the Democrats from mustering the 41 votes necessary to sustain a filibuster. While thwarting the goals of their respective party leaderships [1] the group members were hailed as moderates who put aside severe partisanship to do what was best for the Senate.

Although strongly criticized by both Democratic and Republican partisans at the time, the compromise was successful in precluding further judicial filibusters or the use of the nuclear option during the rest of the 109th Congress. As noted before, the Gang of 14 deal was instrumental in permitting Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito an up-or-down vote, as his vote for confirmation (58 for to 42 against) would not have been adequate to overcome a party-line filibuster (i.e. did not equal or exceed 60 votes). The 2006 elections, however, saw Republican members Lincoln Chafee (R-Rhode Island) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) replaced by Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse and Sherrod Brown, respectively. Tolerance for Bush's judicial nominees was among the criticism the Democratic winners leveled against their incumbent Republican opponents, and the elections as a whole handed control of the Senate to the Democrats.

This change in the Senate membership for the 110th Congress, in combination with the agreement's expiration in December, 2006, made the relevance of the group highly questionable in future conflicts involving judicial nominations.

Going against his party and with his heart.


In 1993, McCain opposed military operations in Somalia.[94] McCain also attacked pork barrel spending within Congress, believing that the practice did not contribute to the greater national interest.[35] Towards this end he was instrumental in pushing through approval of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996,[35] which gave the president the power to veto individual items of pork. Although this was one of McCain's biggest Senate victories,[35] the effect was short-lived as the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional in 1998.[95]

In a more symbolic attempt to limit congressional privilege, he introduced an amendment in 1994 to remove free VIP parking for members of Congress at D.C. area airports; his annoyed colleagues rejected the notion and accused McCain of grandstanding.[35] McCain was one of only four Republicans in Congress to vote against the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995,[96] and was the only Republican senator to vote against the Freedom to Farm Act in 1996.[97] He was one of only five senators to vote against the Telecommunications Act of 1996.[98]

Tabacco:

McCain used his chairmanship to take on the tobacco industry in 1998, proposing legislation that would increase cigarette taxes in order to fund anti-smoking campaigns and reduce the number of teenage smokers, increase research money on health studies, and help states pay for smoking-related health care costs.[104][35] The industry spent some $40–50 million in national advertising in response;[104][35] while McCain's bill had the support of the Clinton administration and many public health groups, most Republican senators opposed it, stating it would create an unwieldy new bureaucracy.[104] The bill failed to gain cloture twice[104] and was seen as a bad political defeat for McCain.[104]

FactCheck: Claim of "24 years with no earmarks" mostly true
McCain said, "I'm proud to tell you, in 24 years as a member of Congress, I have never asked for nor received a single earmark or pork barrel project for my state."

McCain has certainly made a crusade out of attacking "earmarks," and watchdog groups don't know of any instance in which McCain has asked for an earmark. But here's what rivals point to:

* In a 1992 letter to the EPA, McCain asked for $5 million for a wastewater project in Nogales AZ, either out of existing funds or "earmark the amount from an appropriate account." But McCain's letter was a request, not a legislative earmark carrying the force of law.
* In 2006, McCain proposed $10 million to create a center honoring former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. But was that pork-barrel spending? Answer: It depends. It wasn't slipped into some bill in the dead-of-the-night, but was a separate piece of legislation.

Source: FactCheck.org on 2008 Fox News NH Republican primary debate Jan 6, 2008

Despite factcheck's wording... they proved McCain hasn't asked for any earmarks.


Veto any pork-barrel bill

“I will refuse to sign any pork-barrel bill that crosses my desk,” McCain says. “And if Congress overrides my veto and tries to force me to waste your money, I’ll make sure you know who they are, every single one of them.” It does not seem to be an idle threat. McCain scrutinizes all spending bills, looking for frivolous projects - even if they are intended for Arizona. Appropriators have been known to warn fellow lawmakers not to push for a project unless they are willing to be revealed by McCain.

Source: Boston Globe, “Political Notebook”, p. A16 Dec 5, 1999


2001: tax package with spending restraint, against Bush cuts

Q: You've been justifying your vote against the 2001 Bush tax cut by saying, "they didn't have spending cuts along with it." But before the final vote, you said: "I cannot support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief." You never once mentioned that there weren't spending cuts.

A: I mentioned it many, many times. And I had a tax cut package of my own which also included restraints in spending.

Q: But in 2001, you voted for a tax cut that was targeted more at the middle class, and you voted against the tax cut when it tilted more toward the wealthy. Don't you sound a little bit like Obama or Clinton on that?

A: I don't think so. Back in 1984, when I first came to the Congress as a foot soldier in the Reagan revolution, I was one of those who fought hard for tax cuts, and we were able to get them. And after that we had one of the greatest periods of economic prosperity in history.

Source: 2008 Fox News interview: "Choosing the President" series Feb 3, 2008

In October 2003 the McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act failed a vote in the Senate by 55 votes to 43, but would have introduced a cap and trade system of greenhouse gases at the 2000 emissions level.[27] In 2005 it was reintroduced under the altered moniker of the Climate Change Stewardship and Innovation Act, but again failed to gather enough support; Republicans opposed the Bill 49-6, while Democrats supported it 37-10.[28]. If passed, the acts would have capped 2010 CO2 emissions at the 2000 level. Residential and agricultural areas, as well as other areas deemed "not feasible", would be exempt. The bill would have also established a scholarship at the National Academy of Sciences for those studying climatology.[27]

[FUZO]

TweetMcCain slams 'crony capitalism'
Repeats call for resignation of SEC chairman

) -- U.S. Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who has been among those leading the criticism of the nation's executives in the wake of the recent corporate accounting scandals, said the "current threat to our prosperity" comes from corporate executives who have "enriched themselves" at the expense of their companies and employees.

In a Thursday speech before the National Press Club, McCain expressed support for some of the reforms on the drawing board, but said some of the ideas, such those as the bill sponsored by Sen. Paul Sarbanes, need to be strengthened.

"A range of proposals to reform corporate governance and government oversight are now before Congress. Others will be considered in the weeks ahead. Many of their provisions are commendable. Some fall short of doing all that is necessary," he said.

"To love the free market is to loathe the scandalous behavior of those who have betrayed the values of transparency, trust, contract and faith that lie at the heart of a healthy and prosperous free enterprise system, and the patriotism that sustains an aspiring and confident free society," he said.

And more from the NY Times:



Quote:
CORPORATE CONDUCT: THE MAVERICK; McCain Urges Corporate Change And Resignation of S.E.C. Chief

With a biting indictment of ''morally challenged executives,'' Senator John McCain put himself at the leading edge of the drive against corporate wrongdoing today, laying out proposals for broad new regulation of business that are far more stringent than those of President Bush and leading Democrats.

Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who was Mr. Bush's most potent primary challenger in 2000 and is still a political wild card, set out his ideas in a midday speech at the National Press Club that harked back to the populist tones of his presidential campaign.

Sometimes quoting Theodore Roosevelt, the trust-busting Republican he considers a personal role model, Mr. McCain excoriated ''unethical self-serving executives'' who produced the string of scandals associated with corporations like Enron, Global Crossing and WorldCom.

''Trust was sacrificed in too many corporate boardrooms on the altar of quick and illusory profits intended to generate astonishingly inappropriate levels of executive compensation,'' Mr. McCain said, speaking sharply of ''crony capitalism.''

With his address, Mr. McCain put himself at the center of a debate over corporate misconduct that has the Bush administration on the defensive. The senator substantively set himself apart from Mr. Bush, who earlier this week recommended milder measures.

Among the main differences, Mr. McCain is calling for companies to treat stock options as a business expense on their financial statements and wants to prohibit top executives from selling shares in their companies while they work there.

The speech prompted a question from a reporter, during a session afterward, about whether he was considering an independent run for president in 2004.

''I campaigned for president in 2000 on the whole broad issue of reform, reform of campaign financing, reform of the military, reform of Social Security, reform of the institutions of government,'' Mr. McCain said. ''So this is another institution that cries out or an environment that cries out for reform.'' He then demurred ''my only goal here is to try and move this process as quickly as possible to a successful conclusion, so that the United States economy can be restored.''