David Postman reports the FEC has said no to Maria Cantwell's request to be considered Mike McGavick's opponent prior to September primary, thus triggering the "Millionaire's Amendment." That means Cantwell cannot, for now at least, ask individual contributors for donations higher than the $2,100 per person limit based on McGavick's $2 million contribution to his own primary campaign. I've previously noted the disconnect between Cantwell's request that McGavick be considered her opponent now for the purposes of fundraising, but not be considered her opponent until after the primary for the purposes of scheduling debates. Consider this ruling a small bit of justice to that irony.
Posted by Eric Earling at August 24, 2006 11:58 AM | Email ThisFor her loyal (and apparently myopic) supporters, why do you not see that her public machinations give an indication of what does/will do to your wallet? Perhaps she does go after "the other guy." But eventually his wallet will be empty and she'll get around to appropriating yours.
Posted by: scott158 on August 24, 2006 11:44 AMThe law states that the opponent has to be within the same party for a primary election, not a desperate incumbent on the other side of the fence. The FEC made the correct call.
Posted by: Burdabee on August 24, 2006 12:07 PMReporter, was there a reason for the spanking on this site? The Republicans thought it through and were dead set against it. Even McCain said there would be problems with it.
Posted by: swatter on August 24, 2006 02:19 PM Before you start throwing stones you should
know that Mike McGavick supports the campaign
finance reform your speaking of. In fact his
only problem with it is he thinks they need to close
the loophole on 527"s. Don't take my word for
it Stefan has McGavick on audio saying just that.
Go to the archive section on sound politics
then go to march 21st and you will see what
I'm talking about.
With comments like this I guess it shouldn't
surprise me why 47 percent of you told the rasmussen
poll that you think Mike McGavick is conservative.
Phil,
There are a few issues I disagree with McGavick over. All-in-all I can roughly say that he and I share opinions on abou 75 percent of the issues. Which is better than the 10 percent or less of the issues I agree with Cantwell over. If you listen to any of McGavick's speeches that will probably be brought up in the first five minutes.
The choice is obvious.
(Susan Hutchinson in 2010)
Considering we don't really know where McGavick
stands on a lot of issues that's a pretty bold
claim to make.I'm sorry I just have a real problem
with someone who is in favor of restricting the right to
free speech.
As for 2010 I don't think the state gop deserves
someone like Susan Hutchison.After what they
tried to do to her they can all rot in you know
where as far I'm concerned.Unless Mark Hulst is
the State chairman in 2010 that's how I see it.
Posted by: phil spackman on August 25, 2006 12:41 AM
He promised an issues campaign and then decides to make headlines about his personal life. But before he spills the beans he slams the tone of the camapign he's part of.
This is a campaign with a "tone" we haven't seen in a while: real slick.
Wouldn't McGavick bring it up because he heard Cantwell was going to make hay of it and wanted to head it off at the pass?
Posted by: swatter on August 25, 2006 08:29 AMThe only real story is that Democrats stand for Defeat. Violent Islam is a frusration to Democrats, not something that they take seriously as a threat.
Vote McGavick.
Posted by: Jeff B. on August 25, 2006 10:02 AMSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIEE! SOOO-SOOO
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOIEEE!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't she vote AGAINST the minimum wage increase???
Posted by: Megs on August 25, 2006 12:45 PMCliffnotes version...
During the recent "Trifecta Bill" that failed a short time ago, a provision in the minimum wage portion of the legislation would have allowed employers to factor in tips for service workers.
So, according to the propaganda, a waitress making a base salary of $7 an hour who received $5 an hour in tips would have a base salary of $2.
(Two sentence explanation)
This issue is way more complicated than that, of course, but a simple stretch of the truth is easier to spread than a long, detailed explanation of facts.
(Which would entail combing over pages and pages of legislation and "legalese")
I'm sure other folks can explain in greater detail.
Posted by: Reporterward on August 25, 2006 02:44 PMI think the big issue for Cantwell was getting rid of the estate tax. The thought of that drives the socialist wing (actually, it's the damn main hall) of the Democrat party bonkers. And she doesn't want to alienate her base any more than she already has.
Posted by: Heartless Libertarian on August 25, 2006 07:10 PM