McCain took out a loan in November for $3 million, then amended the deal for another $1 million in December. There's some weirdness in how it all interacts with public matching funds and McCain's on again/off again use of that system, but it's a bit complex. The interesting part is this addendum from the loan agreement (http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/) (begins on p21 and continues to p22, which is the quote's source).
Additional Requirement. Borrower and lender agree that if Borrower [McCain's campaign commitee] withdraws from the public matching funds program, but John McCain then does not win the next primary or caucus in which he is active (which can be any primary or caucus held the same day) or does not place at least within 10 percentage points of the winner of that primary or caucus, Borrower will cause John McCain to remain an active political candidate and Borrower will, within thirty (3) days of said primary or caucus (i) reapply for public matching funds, (ii) grant to Lender, as additional collateral for the Loan, a first priority perfected security interest in and to all Borrower's right, title and interest in and to the public matching funds program, and (iii) execute and deliver to Lender such documents, instruments and agreements as Lender may require with respect to the foregoing.
Italics mine. Basically, McCain made a legally binding agreement to pretend to stay in the race and to re-enter the public financing system if he lost the next primary/caucus or wasn't within 10 points of the lead. He would do this in order to collect funds from American taxpayers in order to pay back his loan.

Clever.

Clever.
Or corrupt?

"He would do this in order to collect funds from American taxpayers in order to pay back his loan."

Your statement implies that public matching funds come from the general fisc. The public matching funds come from voluntary contributions. I assume it is not limited to taxpayers although the voluntary checkoff on your tax return is the easiest way to contribute money.

Shhh, you are interrupting the hyperventilating....

Well let's be fair Sixee. They're not hyperventilating. That reaction is reserved for things that eventually are approved by the Supreme Court.

akipt and Sixee, made for each other. Well done!

Since you mentioned public financing, Thormir, any thoughts on whether Obama breaks his oath to accept public financing if the Republican opponent does?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/02/us/politics/02fec.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

McCain has indicated he will go with public financing. If Obama wins the nomination (which seems increasingly likely) it will be interesting to see if he's a man of his word (since his word is really all he's got at the moment).

(since his word is really all he's got at the moment).

oh burn, deep burn.

Obama is rolling in money already, I doubt he will break his word. I just hope McCain realizes that calling the current administration a failure by claiming to be an agent of change, while simultaneously flip flopping to match the views of the current president won't get him in the white house, so he won't have to waste time raising any money.

Heh, at leasts Obama's word means something.

The people on this forum spin information better than most of the pundits on TV. I enjoy reading your banter :)

a politicians word hasnt meant shit since

"read my lips, no new taxes"

Forget that. It's all been downhill since Wilson.

Since you mentioned public financing, Thormir, any thoughts on whether Obama breaks his oath to accept public financing if the Republican opponent does?I don't see an oath in this article. There's mention of promising to have a truce, but the only quote from Obama is through his spokesman that he'd “'aggressively pursue an agreement' with whoever was his opponent." Perhaps somewhere else there is a quote.

I don't expect Obama to break whatever promise he makes, but I'm sure it's not unheard of.

I thought Obama pledged to go with the public financing when it was still early in the campaign? Now, seeing how much money he is raising compared to his competitors, he seems to have "changed" that pledge.

a politicians word hasnt meant shit since

"read my lips, no new taxes"

"I am not a crook", as Nixon spoke, was a tad more incriminating than Bush Sr's tax pledge.

I thought Obama pledged to go with the public financing when it was still early in the campaign? Now, seeing how much money he is raising compared to his competitors, he seems to have "changed" that pledge.I don't know if he ever made such a pledge. Probably best to make sure of it before accusing him of changing something.

I don't know if he ever made such a pledge. Probably best to make sure of it before accusing him of changing something.

Watching Sunday morning program, aides for both Democrat and Republican camps were arguing the point, with the Rep camp quoting the pledge that was made as saying exactly that he would do the public. /shrug

Probably best to make sure of it before accusing him of changing something.

Wouldn't that tie into his mantra of "Change"? Or do I have it all wrong?

Last year, on March 1, 2007, following a favorable Federal Election Commission response, Burton stated: "If Senator Obama is the nominee, he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election," according to the Associated Press, the letter says.


http://onthehillblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/campaign-finance-groups-hold-obama-to.html

FEC says (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MCCAIN_FEC?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) "not so fast" to McCain's opt in/opt out of the public financing system.

FEC says (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MCCAIN_FEC?SITE=JRC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT) "not so fast" to McCain's opt in/opt out of the public financing system.

Actually, David Mason, the chairman, says not so fast. There is no FEC at the moment, with 4 of 6 chairs vacant, so the FEC cannot approve or disapprove anything, needing a quorum of four.. Two prior chairmen say McCain is fine to withdraw. Is this a case of the conflicts over campaign finance between Mason and McCain over the last several years coming home to roost, in the guise of Mason overstepping his authority?

Well, the lack of quorum is noted by Mason in the article. If there's some kind of background motivation involved I don't know of it, and it seems reasonable for Mason to state that McCain's actions may not be kosher.

Well, the lack of quorum is noted by Mason in the article. If there's some kind of background motivation involved I don't know of it, and it seems reasonable for Mason to state that McCain's actions may not be kosher.

Did you read the article you linked?

Yes, though I didn't note the mention of dispute between Mason and McCain on my first reading. Even so, given McCain's playing with the system -- opting in and out as it suits him -- Mason's objection seems to be a reasonable one.