The Democrat candidates are busy attacking each other, so the New York Times steps up and criticizes of John McCain for doing something entirely legal:
Given Senator John McCain 's signature stance on campaign finance reform, it was not surprising that he backed legislation last year requiring presidential candidates to pay the actual cost of flying on corporate jets. The law, which requires campaigns to pay charter rates when using such jets rather than cheaper first-class fares, was intended to reduce the influence of lobbyists and create a level financial playing field.
But over a seven-month period beginning last summer, Mr. McCain's cash-short campaign gave itself an advantage by using a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife, Cindy McCain , according to public records. For five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes, those records show.
Mr. McCain's campaign paid a total of $241,149 for the use of that plane from last August through February, records show. That amount is approximately the cost of chartering a similar jet for a month or two, according to industry estimates.
As the Times notes next:
The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole - rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes - but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making.
The Times does not note that it is the Democrats who are preventing the FEC from appointing new commissioners and achieving a quorum. This is a scandalous abuse, designed to prevent the FEC from approving disbursement of funds to the McCain campaign, which has stated it will accept funds, and with them a spending camp. The well-financed candidates of the Party of the Little Guy do not need federal campaign funds, so they are in effect crippling the opposition.
The Times entirely ignores this important context and hyperventilates about something which is entirely legal thanks to Democrats. If it is somehow a scandal for a candidate to hitch a ride on his wife's jet, why didn;t the Times criticize John F. Kerry's use of Teresa's jet?
One more reason for readers to distrust the Times, which is rapidly declining. File this one with the story about the attractive female lobbyist, under Democrat Propaganda.
Hat tip: Blendi
Share