Why John McCain sometimes supports campaign finance reform

by Stacie

This piece in the Times gives a very good view of the type of people who latch into the current money system of politics, and why. McCain bundler, friend, and longtime supporter Donald Diamond is very clear that when he makes contributions, he wants a return on his investment, and clearly, the land developer has gotten just that.

Mr. Diamond is close to most of Arizona’s Congressional delegation and is candid about his expectations as a fund-raiser. “I want my money back, for Christ’s sake. Do you know how many cocktail parties I have to go to?”

On the one hand, I agree that McCain was engaging in constituent services, although it sounds like in at least one instance, his aides went above and beyond to ensure good terms for a Diamond investment. On the other, when I contact my senators, I'm lucky if I receive a form letter loosely related to the topic weeks later that's more spin than substance. But one difference between Donald Diamond and myself is a lot of zeroes in a bank balance, and I would be stupid to think that I would warrant the same consideration.

I think it's a bit dim to think that McCain actually plays the game that differently from the rest of the members of the senate, and articles like this rightly chip away at his "maverick" persona, but I continue to believe that McCain is fundamentally less corrupt than some in that body and does actually care about appearances, which is refreshing. But the political world is filled with men like Donald Diamond who use money to build relationships that ultimately favor them heavily. McCain uses them just like everyone else does. And is used in return.

Comments

[SteveIL]

"But the political world is filled with men like Donald Diamond who use money to build relationships that ultimately favor them heavily. McCain uses them just like everyone else does. And is used in return."

Yeah, I don't think so. Three things about this. First, Diamond has never been indicted for anything, unlike supporters for Obama and Clinton. Second, McCain didn't always lend his name to deals Diamond wanted to close. Lastly, McCain didn't forward federal money to Diamond for his business, unlike Obama and Clinton. Those last two items are in the piece, if one wants to read the whole thing.

[Stacie Boschma]

Really, you don't think that Donald Diamond is a fairly typical species of hanger-on in our political system? I wonder where all those tens of millions that flood it come from then.

[SteveIL]

"Really, you don't think that Donald Diamond is a fairly typical species of hanger-on in our political system? I wonder where all those tens of millions that flood it come from then."

As opposed to whom? George Soros? Steven Bing? Rob Glaser? How about Dianne Feinstein's husband? Or Jack Murtha's brother? What about the nearly $200,000 in contributions from Michelle Obama's employer, the University of Chicago, which received 7 figures in earmarks from...(Jeopardy theme)...Barack Obama?

Again, this is a non-story from the NYT, just a smear. And considering the questionable company kept by both Democrat candidates, the Diamond/McCain relationship is entirely aboveboard.

[Stacie Boschma]

And I suggested otherwise where, exactly? Oh, maybe it was when I wrote, "but I continue to believe that McCain is fundamentally less corrupt than some in that body and does actually care about appearances, which is refreshing."

Your incessant partisan paranoia is boring, Steve.