What's Fairness Have to Do With It?
The Post thinks it is unfair for Senator McCain to be stuck with spending limits while the Democrats can battle away until their convention. First, so what? If rules are unfair, one remains stuck with them anyway, and can argue about changing them but is not free to ignore them.
Second, the public financing system isn't just about doling money out to candidates. It was also intended to LIMIT SPENDING. Laws may not (constitutionally) set spending limits unless those limits are voluntary, and the traditional way to sweeten the deal has been to offer public money in exchange. The spending limit isn't an afterthought, but an animating feature of the law.
Finally, the practice of using the promise of future public funding to secure a loan arose because candidates needed money before the Treasury could release it. Observing that this practice provided an incentive for candidates to obtain certification, without intending to limit their spending, using one's certification as collateral is treated like accepting the money.
The issue of whether McCain's invocation of his certification is the same thing as "collateral" is a good one on which reasonable people can disagree. But it isn't enough to take the McCain campaign's word for it. The real solution is either to have the FEC rule, or if it can't, ask a federal judge to do it.