« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
How Much Will The FEC Shutdown Affect The '08 Election?
The Federal Election Commission, the agency that administers and enforces campaign finance laws, has shut down.
How big of a deal is that? Well, the consequences will not be immediately felt -- but if it stays shut down, it could significantly affect the 2008 elections.
As of now, the FEC has only two commissioners. It needs four to do anything. The reason for the shortage, of course, is the Senate stalemate over vote-suppression guru Hans von Spakovsky's nomination. Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL), Russ Feingold (D-WI) and others have opposed Republicans' efforts to have Spakovsky bundled with three other FEC nominees (2 Dems and another Republican).
And when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) tried to hold up-or-down votes on each of the nominees separately in December, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) blocked it. And that's where things stand. The White House says that it's standing behind Spakovsky (even though he's packed his bags and gone).
The FEC's shutdown could affect the election in a number of ways. The first and most obvious is the oversight role it plays with third party groups, such as 527s and nonprofits that spend tens of millions of dollars each election. But there are other -- probably greater -- ramifications.
For instance, the FEC disburses public matching funds for candidates. Since it's shutdown, it's prevented from doing that. And since John Edwards is the highest profile candidate to participate in that system, it might become a problem for him.
In December, The Washington Post hit on this, and Edwards staffers pronounced themselves unconcerned:
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."
Experts I talked to said that the campaign could likely borrow against the expectation that the FEC will resume business eventually. And it's probably not a problem in the short term. But the longer the FEC is out of the commission, the greater possibility that it could become a problem.
On the Republican side, Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) shows no sign of budging in the standoff. And why should he? "It's my view that he doesn't particularly care about the campaign finance laws," Fred Wertheimer, the Executive Director of the nonpartisan watchdog Democracy 21, told me. "He's spent a career opposing the laws and efforts to enforce them."
When it comes to the FEC's policing function, experts also told me that the FEC's temporary absence (however long that is), wouldn't prevent the commission from eventually taking action against ne'er-do-well outside groups. "Anything is going to be delayed rather than permanently lost," Steve Weissman of the Campaign Finance Institute told me.
But that doesn't mean the shutdown couldn't have a wide-ranging impact. A TPM reader with a campaign finance law background who preferred to remain anonymous put it in context:
Anyone who cares about the political process in the U.S. should care about the FEC being shut down. A slow and ponderous watchdog is better than no watchdog at all. The FEC's enforcement function is arguably not it's most important role. Those who always intended to try and skew the result of the 2008 presidential election by illegal means would have done so anyway. They may still be caught and fined and possibly even be criminally prosecuted, but it will now take 4-5 years rather than 2-3 years. Those who want to affect the election but do so legally are the ones who are really screwed - there's no way now to get official advice on how the law is to be interpreted. And everybody loses when the law is unclear.
Josh
Zachary
It matters little. They are so slow to react to petitions, that anything pertaining to this election wouldn't be ruled on until after November.
Better no commission than one with that fascist thug von Spakovsky on it.
January 4, 2008 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
It does matter. In fact, it fits perfectly with the Republican policy of using the Justice Dept to manipulate elections. I would be shocked if we don't find that election laws are enforced selectively, not by the FEC, but by the US Attorneys, who if any cared about integrety would all resign en masse.
January 4, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Edwards campaign can borrow against what is due from FEC, so there should be no problem here.
Related, McConnell needs to be defeated. That would be one step towards getting this country back on the right track. All this Unity '08 and reaching across the aisle is just so much BS, until the people like McConnell are gone and the Republican party can claim to have some sort of integrity. I'm not holding my breath.
January 4, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just how is McConnell blocking the votes on the individuals? Is he using a hold?
January 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This in a nutshell is the problem trying to deal with a party that fundamentally doesn't believe in government. As long as they have enough power to set up choices between their corrupt way of operating and not operating at all, it's "heads I win, tails you lose."
January 4, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a good thing - it means that for the first election in awhile, the First Amendment won't be taking mortar rounds from supposed do-gooders.
January 4, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're missing a major part of the story. Edwards has already borrowed against those FEC funds. Under normal circumstances, the FEC doesn't pay out the match until the end of q1 of the election year (ie, end of March 08). By that point Edwards will either be the nominee (well, that was the thinking in December when the story broke) or will probably be done.
This is a completely non-story, because by law the FEC is required to make that payment. The Bush admin stubborness will only delay approval of disbursements that are legally required of the Comission.
The fun part will be if former candidate Edwards gets to sue the FEC for the money he is due and asks the courts to compel Bush to nominate Commissioners.
January 4, 2008 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Richard's question is extremely important. If McConnel is "holding up" the entire process by asserting a hold, then it's time to run Harry Reid out on a rail right now!
If he won't respect a colleague, with superior seniority, who's upholding his constitutional oath, but bends over and drops his drawers for any Republican, then he is utterly without merit.
If it's a "virtual filibuster", then the greasy pigporker should have to stand on the floor all night, every night and earn his corrupt pay.
There is far too much cuteness on the part of our "leaders". They seem to think that all they have to do is make voters mad at the Republicans and THEY will get more seats. Voters can hold ample contempt for both parties. If the Democrats don't accomplish something this year, they'll lose, not win!
January 4, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have the Repubs pick one of the Dem's nominees and confirm two of them so the FEC can at least keep functioning.
What a joke the Repubs refuse to offer anyone else besides Spakovsky.
January 4, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd rather shut it down, than have another nazi in a position of power in this government. An empty chair is better than a bush appointee any day.
January 4, 2008 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some of you clearly do not understand the underlying procedural issue with regard to current vacancies. By law, no more than three of the six commissioners can represent one political party. Any commission action which requires board approval must be supported by four or more of the six commissioners. Only two appointees remain on the commission at this point, effectively neutering it.
Currently, four nominees—including von Spakovsky—are awaiting Senate confirmation. As referred to above, a stalemate has developed because Minority Leader McConnell insists that all four nominees receive an 'up or down vote' as a group. This chess move requires that those opposed to the appointment of von Spakovsky agree to his appointment, or simultaneously reject the other three with their rejection of him.
The problem is not a hold placed by one or more Senators on either side of the aisle. It is McConnell's insistence that the Senate follow the procedure he has outlined, which has been proposed solely to result in one of two outcomes: the appointment of von Spakovksy, or the appointment of no one and the effected 'shut down' of the agency.
This is a raw, obstructionist move on the part of McConnell: nothing more. He has been a career-long opponent to any regulation of the electoral process, and long battled McCain-Feingold and other reform proposals. And, his blatant, bold move is the only thing holding up confirmation of the remaining three commissioners, all of whom would otherwise be approved will little or no dissent.
January 4, 2008 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's a novel idea.
Do what Bush does...disregard the law entirely.
Have the Dems simply fill the seat with their own choice and say Bush's nominations are simply suggestions, and that the Senate is where the choice is made.
Bush had his year to get his nominations passed and failed, so Congress is taking the authority to do it.
Let Bush go to court on that one.
January 4, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Really, the lack of spine of our so-called leaders astonishes me fresh every friggin' day. Reid should declare that Bush has misinterpreted the law and present the Senate a slate of two Dems, a Green and an Independence Party member (no more than 3 from one party, right?). Does the law say the President nominates? Must be a misinterpretation, like Bush's misinterpretation of Congressional mandates. Just push some nominations through, and force the administration to sue to roll them back.
January 4, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a case where Reid should force the GOP to actually make good their filibuster.
Let the slimes of the GOP explain just why exactly they are filibustering this vote.
Schedule the vote every night at the close of business. Force the Republicans to have 40 Senators on hand every single day. Don't let them know which day they will be forced to follow through. They will get tired of it after the first couple of weeks of having to give a three hour plus starter speech.
[This fucking ask.com advert is really anoying the way it pops itself up every time you press the return key]
January 4, 2008 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question is whether Edwards can borrow against future possible matching funds when there's no process by which he can certify how much the Commission would, eventually pay him. That risk factor means a crappier loan.
The issue on the March disbursement is that b/c y'all didn't check off the $3, the Treasury won't have the money to pay off all the matching funds until then.
January 4, 2008 8:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since Barack Obama is one of the people who placed the hold, surely there's no time like the present for him to exhibit his "negotiation skills," get everyone of "good will" round "the table," and work out a "compromise" solution?
No time like the present!
January 4, 2008 9:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
or perhaps obama is best served if edwards doesn't get his funding????
January 4, 2008 9:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Those who want to affect the election but do so legally are the ones who are really screwed - there's no way now to get official advice on how the law is to be interpreted. And everybody loses when the law is unclear."
This is no small point, and for more reasons than you might think. We know from experience that even when the FEC is up and running, the GOP pretty much does whatever it likes. Without a functioning FEC and facing desperate odds, GOP behavoir might well resemble Enron in California. And yes, they will eventually be caught on it, but by then whatever financial or other shenanigans used might have already stolen another election.
But what may be even worse is that we can fully expect the lack of FEC advisory opinions to be used as cudgels by the Republicans, win or lose, to attack groups like MoveOn and other organizations with the fascist goal of representing the interests of average citizens. Because you just know that if the FEC remains shuttered until we get a new president, this is what's coming after the election is all over and done.
January 4, 2008 10:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
lambert strether & DJ,Iowa:
Obama's opposition to Spakovsky has nothing to do with the hold. The hold is 100% by Republicans.
January 4, 2008 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is time for the Democrats to show some backbone. So far, the republicans and george bush show a total willingness to wreck the government whenever challenged on any issue. The Democrats cave to the will of the republican minority and a preseident despised by a large minority of US citizens.
The Democrats have already diminished their image by reacting in a craven and weak manner in the face of the corrupt and obstructionist republican party. The reputation of congress has fallen even lower than that of the president although the resentment has been for their failure to stand up to the president as opposed to a dislike of Democrats. It will soon change.
January 5, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
"What a joke the Repubs refuse to offer anyone else besides Spakovsky"
This has been the rule during the Bush administration.
In the past, Senate reluctance toward a nominee was a signal for the President to back off and send up a more acceptable name.
If a nominee was really, really repugnant to the opposition a little courtesy was shown.
Many of Bush's judicial nominations were damned awful, but, when resisted, the usual conciliatory response ultimately came in the form of the threat of the nuclear option.
Republicans know very well how absolutely despicable von Spakovsky is to Democrats.
This nomination and obstruction by McConnell is an absolute symbol of Republican 'rule' and an illustration of 'why we all can't just get along.'
So why doesn't Obama come back and reach across the aisle?
Why it should be simple. Obama says he'll do that. He'll bring us all together and hell, this should be the simplest case to handle. Just change nominees or allow individual votes; after all GOP, you still have the majority. Wouldn't this be just the perfect win win situation?
We all ought to write Obama and ask him to get right on down there when full sessions resume and just bring us together. After all, we need Hope.`
Better still, someone with a public forum should ask Obama, right in front of God and everyone.
January 5, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
call942: Personally, I'd rather Obama spent his time running for President. What fun it would be to have an articulate, educated President again, one who uses hope and not fear as his message to the American people.
January 6, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama dont remember him blocking anyone else? Kinda Funny to me
January 16, 2008 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is trying to pull Repug's / etc...Don't trust him and I,m not a Racist - I,m a Black Women (Deal with it)
January 16, 2008 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink