One of the Post’s “liberal” columnists buys into the McCain campaign line that Obama’s refusal of public financing represents a lack of moral character (McCain’s Core Advantage). Both the McCain and Obama camps have run this issue into the ground with spin, but one point that doesn’t seem to get much attention is that McCain did the exact same thing a few months ago. Similar to Obama’s withdraw, McCain opted for public financing in the Republican primary and then withdrew once he realized it was more lucrative to raise private funds. Unlike Obama, McCain was bound to public financing by a legal agreement, not just a pledge. McCain took out a bank loan and listed public financing as collateral. Under FEC rules, a candidate is legally bound to public financing if he takes out such a loan. McCain petitioned for an exemption from public financing, but the FEC is not capable of giving an exemption because its board does not have enough members (another story). Meanwhile, McCain has acted as if he had an exemption and has spent beyond the spending limits set by public financing. Whatever Obama’s faults for breaking a pledge, at least he’s within the law.
Even if Cohen intended his column as a warning to Obama, he should have mentioned something about McCain’s similar withdraw from public financing and the surrounding legal predicament. It’s hard to tell whether Cohen forgot about the issue, didn’t think it was important (despite mentioning other, less relevant McCain flip-flops), or had some other reason for omitting this.
