FEC Shutdown?

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has been shut down. And how did I find this out? I was over at DKOS looking for a Bussard Fusion Post by Roger Fox and came across this one on the FEC. It links to a Washington Post story.

The federal agency in charge of policing the torrent of political spending during the upcoming presidential primaries will, for all practical purposes, shut its doors on New Year's Eve.

The Federal Election Commission will effectively go dark on Jan. 1 because Congress remains locked in a standoff over the confirmation of President Bush's nominees to the panel. As a consequence, the FEC will enter 2008 with just two of six members -- short of the four votes needed for the commission to take any official action.

"There is, in effect, nobody to answer the phone," said Robert F. Bauer, a leading Democratic campaign finance lawyer.

Although the 375 auditors, lawyers and investigators at the FEC will continue to process work already before them, a variety of matters that fall to the commissioners will be placed on hold indefinitely. Chief among them are deciding whether to launch investigations into possible campaign finance violations and determining the penalties.

Seven presidential candidates have applied to receive public matching funds for their campaigns, but they may not be able to access the money until the FEC certifies their requests. That takes four votes.

The national political parties each anticipate an infusion of about $1 million from the U.S. Treasury to help pay for their national conventions. Releasing that money takes four votes.

So who exactly is behind these shenainans? (Actually I approve of shutting down the FEC. What I object to is changing the rules in the middle of the campaign.) Let's have a look.
he FEC is composed of three appointees from each party, all nominated by the president. There is already one vacancy, and three recess appointments will expire on Dec. 31.

The potential for an FEC shutdown has been looming for weeks, as a handful of Democratic senators voiced opposition to one of Bush's nominees to the commission, Hans A. von Spakovsky. Their concern stemmed not from von Spakovsky's work on the FEC but from his tenure in the Justice Department's civil rights division.

His critics contend that von Spakovsky advocated a controversial Texas redistricting plan and fought to institute a requirement in Georgia that voters show photo identification before being permitted to cast ballots.

"I am particularly concerned with his efforts to undermine voting rights," Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said in a statement released in September after he placed a hold on von Spakovsky's nomination. Obama and others gathered more opposition to von Spakovsky's nomination by drawing civil rights advocates into a lobbying effort for its rejection. They attracted the involvement of a number of groups, including the NAACP and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, that typically would not be engaged in a battle over an FEC nomination.

The blockade worked, but Republican leaders in the Senate countered with one of their own. If von Spakovsky were rejected, they would not allow the two Democratic nominees to be appointed, either.

"The Democrats have picked their nominees, and we've picked ours," Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said as the Senate prepared to recess for the holidays. "What we have here," he said, is "the Democrats trying to veto one of our nominees. That isn't going to happen. They're all four going to go together, or none of them will be approved."

Ah. Mr Clean Barrack Hussein Obama is at the center of this. Now why would he do something like that? I may have an answer.
When it comes to federal matching funds, Democrat John Edwards has the most to lose. The FEC certified the payment of the first installment of funds this week, including $8.8 million for Edwards. But matching payments for money he has raised this month, or will receive in subsequent months, may have to wait until the FEC has four members.

There is debate among campaign finance lawyers about whether matching funds could be released without a formal commission vote, one Edwards campaign official said. Because the next installment of funds would not arrive until after the early primaries, strategists inside the Edwards campaign said they are not worried.

"We have the necessary resources to wage an aggressive campaign with the funds we currently have on hand," said Eric Schultz, a spokesman for the campaign. "We fully expect the FEC to meet their obligations under the public financing system."

As senators left town this week, the small community of lawyers and advocates who monitor campaign finance law tried to take stock of the new reality. There will not be total lawlessness, they said. The statute of limitations on most campaign finance violations does not run out for five years, so when the commission is at full strength, it will be able to pursue complaints.

But the notion of a decapitated agency is not sitting well with many of the nation's top election lawyers.

"For all of the complaints about the FEC, when it comes to campaign finance law, it is the enforcement agency," said Lawrence Noble, a former FEC general counsel. "We're in the middle of one of the most hotly contested elections in recent years -- where you have a campaign that started so early, where they're raising more money than ever before, where there are new concerns about fundraising and about the bundling of contributions. I think the public would like to know that someone is keeping an eye on all this."

So, Obama is working to block his rival in the name of "honest government". Right.

Which made me think of Simon's Law:

The politician who campaigns hardest on cleaning up corruption is the biggest crook.

This will not sit well with Edwards supporters. Not well at all.

Cross Posted at Power and Control

Welcome Instapundit readers.

posted by Simon on 12.24.07 at 10:58 AM










Comments

The more I see of Obama's Bananarama, the less I like it.

Former Belgian   ·  December 25, 2007 12:15 PM

It's not that they're crooked. It's that they're insane.

Insane people don't care about what barriers there are to what they want, so they don't mind much if more barriers are erected. The current set of election laws meet that criterion. The candidates all want office, not because they're qualified or want to do the job, but because they're crazy. They're therefore perfectly willing to see requirements instituted for campaigning or holding office that only the insane would be willing to tackle, much less meet.

We have long since passed the point where the gradual accretion of barriers has resulted in a system where only the insane are willing to tackle the course. They aren't crooks. They're loons. Admittedly the difference is difficult to see sometimes.

Regards,
Ric

Ric Locke   ·  December 25, 2007 1:08 PM

While I am a North Carolinian and John Edwards used to represent me (in a way, sort of) in the Senate, I don't really care if he gets money or not. That said, I wouldn't be surprised to see the fine hand of either Hillary or Obama behind this move.

With regard to Simon's Law, I have always wondered what part that Obama played in getting the Chicago Tribune and WLS-TV to go to court to open the divorce custody records of Jack Ryan and his former wife, the actress Jeri Ryan. Both sides of the custody dispute agreed to keep the records sealed in the interest of their son. When the records were opened and Jeri Ryan's claims of sex clubs were aired, Ryan's campaign was sunk and Obama had virtually NO opposition. He had been facing a candidate who could have self-funded his campaign, who looked like a saint for giving up a partnership at Goldman Sachs to teach in an inner-city Chicago school, and who was an Illinois native unlike Obama. In addition, he was awarded additional custody rights at the end of the hearing. I doubt the MSM wants to go there for fear that they wouldn't be seen as "impartial". Hah.

John Richardson   ·  December 25, 2007 1:52 PM

Thank you Ric, I will definetely have to consider your point of view. I've been looking for the explaination to modern politics and you seem to have discovered it. Not quite ready to wholeheartdly adopt it, but am willing to devote the rest of the year to checking it against reality. One of those great leaps forward in explainning the world.

one of many   ·  December 25, 2007 4:00 PM

Opposing a nominee for supporting a measure to combat election fraud, calling it 'infringement of voting rights'. Does tend to support the rumors of a certain party engaging in election fraud.

Peter   ·  December 30, 2007 6:16 PM

Post a comment


April 2011
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

ANCIENT (AND MODERN)
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR


Search the Site


E-mail



Classics To Go

Classical Values PDA Link



Archives



Recent Entries



Links



Site Credits