No. They gently asked McCain to sign on as a cosponsor of legislation to fix the presidential public financing system, and respectfully noted his leadership on the issue in the past.

(No doubt the system needs fixing. I was at a conference in New York last week on the 20th anniversary of the New York City campaign finance system, which is the model for how to fix the presidential system, because it encourages small contributions with generous matching funds -- now 6:1 for contributions of $175 or less -- and has been continuously improved. Former mayor Ed Koch described his role in creating the federal system when he was a member of Congress in the early 1970s -- and I realized that except for the Buckley v. Valeo decision that stripped out the law's mandatory spending limits, and some increases in the numbers, the public financing element hasn't been substantially revised since then. It's no wonder that it's become a last resort for desperate candidates, or, worse, a playground for McCain's sort of manipulation.)

But that's not really the point right now, is it? It's nice to ask McCain to cosponsor a fix-up bill, but it won't do anything about the current abuses, and even if it passes, George W. Bush isn't going to sign it. More importantly: McCain is not going to cosponsor the bill, or any other. He has no intention of advocating campaign finance reform. He doesn't even intend to obey the laws, or pay attention to a letter from the chairman of the FEC. He says he's still interested in reform of the independent groups known as 527s, but his only hope of winning the presidency, is as the beneficiary of Freedom's Watch and it's promised $250 million, and other 527s. John McCain is just not that into reform.

I've alluded to this with subtle jabs, but it's time to come out and say it clearly: There are a set of groups in Washington identified with the cause of campaign finance reform that seem to sit up at night staring at a picture of John McCain and waiting for the phone to ring. The four-year affair that ended with passage of the McCain-Feingold legislation banning soft money was the high point of their lives (to their credit, it was quite a political achievement -- still the only piece of legislation enacted over the objections of a majority of Republicans and the misgivings of Bush) but at this point, especially after the (entirely predictable) Supreme Court decision striking down its restrictions on television ads, McCain-Feingold doesn't amount to more than a memory.

This unrequited loyalty not only apparently gives McCain a free pass on abuses such as the loan; it has allowed him to essentially dominate the field, without lifting a finger. McCain's monopoly, as the only Republican interested in reform, gave him incredible power over the agenda (pushing purely restrictive policies, such as the proposed restrictions on political bloggers in 2005, and on non-profits the previous year) and leverage over the organizations, whose support from foundations depends on being bipartisan. This "McCain Wing" of the campaign finance reform movement is led by Democracy 21 and the Campaign Legal Center, both generally admirable and adept organizations, with small staffs and significant influence on the Hill and with reporters and editorial writers. The largest campaign finance organization, and the only one with real members, Common Cause, has been gradually moving beyond the cramped, restrictive view of reform represented by the McCain wing toward a more open approach, with great internal angst -- a longer story than can be told in a blog post!

Fortunately, after several years of waiting for the phone to ring, other Republicans have stepped into the vacuum left by McCain: Arlen Specter has cosponsored, along with Obama and Clinton, the landmark bill to create a system of real public financing for congressional campaigns, and Susan Collins has backed the bill to fix the presidential system. Perhaps this will free the other groups to stop waiting for McCain's return and start telling it like it is.

(I just noticed that Jane Hamsher made much the same point this morning, and she named names.)

-- Mark Schmitt.