« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
FEC Nominees Still Deadlocked over Spakovsky
Ever since September, the nomination for accomplished vote suppression expert Hans von Spakovsky to be a member of the Federal Election Commission has been snagged, stopped by the public opposition of Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Russ Feingold (D-WI) and the somewhat more private opposition of Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH).
The Republican leadership countered the Democrats by insisting that von Spakovsky's nomination was all or nothing -- either von Spakovsky went through or none of the nominated commissioners did. That means that if no compromise is reached by the end of the year, the FEC, which makes rules governing election spending, might effectively shut down in an election year, since it would be left with only two commissioners out of six seats. As we reported back in October, that could create a situation where outside groups funded by millionaires (like the Swift Boat Vets) could run amok in a campaign year.
Roll Call gives (sub. req.) an update of sorts this morning. The short version: things are still at a standstill, but "various scenarios currently are circulating" to avoid a shutdown. One scenario: von Spakovsky could withdraw and the problem would go away. Another: the White House and Senate could join together to make a new round of nominations. Or another: "the deck of current commission recess appointees may be reshuffled and re-recess appointed, a complicated and likely unprecedented strategy." Stay tuned.
Comments (21)
mo2 wrote on December 3, 2007 12:37 PM:I wonder if the Republican leadership insisted that Bush's nominee for assistant attorney general to run the department’s civil division, Gregory G. Katsas, was all or nothing, too?
November 15, 2007 -- "Mr. Katsas had argued for the government in trying to deny basic legal rights to terrorism suspects imprisoned at the Guantánamo Bay naval base."
Scott L wrote on December 3, 2007 12:50 PM:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/washington/16justice.html?hp
Although the Democrats are proving themselves to be weak the Republicans have and are still proving themselves to be a cancer on the Republic. The only thing they love is the top 5%.
jeffgee wrote on December 3, 2007 1:04 PM:Yet, today, Bush scolded the Congress (aka Dems) for not getting anything done this year. His GOpeeps have stonewalled and filibustered everything since they got thumped last year.
whidbeygrl wrote on December 3, 2007 1:09 PM:Just how much of a problem would it be to have the FEC shutdown?
kjoe wrote on December 3, 2007 1:16 PM:Has it not been infected with "loyal Bushies" already?
In short, would an operating FEC with Bush appointed members, even sans Spakovsky, really be an effective commission???
I would not mind a shutdown. Let the millionaires run amok----maybe it would reach a point where the voters more clearly recognized what is going on----instead of being "protected" by a half-assssed fec.
It might make it easier for Clinton and Giuliani---I would hate that. They could both lump all the legitimate negative stuff together with the rest. Still---I don't think it could get much worse having a powerless fec than it was in 2004.
moondancer wrote on December 3, 2007 1:22 PM:The GOP crime syndicate is not going quietly. They are determined to gain as much as possible by theft to make up for the loss of support from citizens. Watch for thuggery and polling crime as pandemic in 08.
whidbeygrl- I agree. I trust no part of the government now. Until a disinfectant is used across the board, you can write them off.
paul wrote on December 3, 2007 1:25 PM:When you're running a criminal enterprise, shutting down the agency that's supposed to enforce the laws is almost as good as filling it with corrupt appointees. Win-win.
oleeb wrote on December 3, 2007 1:26 PM:It's time to call their bluff.
Besides, the law doesn't change even if the FEC isn't able to act. Any illegal acts will remain illegal. Furthermore, they never act in an expeditious way to shut down nefarious Republican acts so what difference does it make? The world will not come to an end if the Democrats show some balls for once. This guy is thoroughly and completely unacceptable to anyone who believes the FEC should operate with some integrity. Personally, I would call their bluff on everything and use the opportunity to point out the extremist nature of their nominees throughout this final, catastrophic year of the Bush junta. But sadly, the DC Dems couldn't take that kind of thing and so I have no hope for a spine to be implanted in any of them now or later for that matter.
Brianm0122 wrote on December 3, 2007 1:49 PM:let them,
It will just bring the vote-suppression headlines into focus. More people will hear of it, and more people will get disgusted with the Bush mafia/admin.
Orwell's Intuition wrote on December 3, 2007 2:09 PM:Call their bluff. Giving in just means giving them power. I'm so sick of these GOP twerps distorting democracy.
modmom wrote on December 3, 2007 2:23 PM:Good for Senators Obama, Feingold, Kerry and Brown! This thug should NEVER be allowed on the FEC. The senators are correct in preventing anyone involved in disenfranchising voters from being appointed. von Spatkovsky deserves jail time!
Peter Principle wrote on December 3, 2007 3:27 PM:Purely from a Machiavellian perspective, the Dems ought to say: "Hey, make our day. Shut the place down."
Given the current fundraising environment, with the Big Money eager to curry favor with the party that's likely to hold all the cards after next year's elections, I think the Dems would come out way ahead in a campaign finance free-for-all.
Of course, if good government is the problem, not so much. But to be honest, it seems a little quaint to be worrying about such things at this point.
beerm wrote on December 3, 2007 3:46 PM:The point here is that the republicans feel that Von Spakovsky's nomination is more important than voters and fair elections.
Legalize wrote on December 3, 2007 4:04 PM:Fine. From where I'm sitting, shutting down ANY executive agency under control of the GOP crime family is a good thing. They are ineffectual at best, and corrupt at worst, while operating.
Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 4:08 PM:Better no FEC than a Von Spakovsky one. I agree, if there is an issue the courts are better protection anyway.
workaday joe wrote on December 3, 2007 4:11 PM:I'd tell bush: you get von Spakovsky when cheney runs a marathon in Death Valley with no shoes on.
If the FEC were to shut down, that would "create a situation where outside groups funded by millionaires (like the Swift Boat Vets) could run amok in a campaign year."
That would be a terrible situation.
Someone could even steal an election.
Untrue commercials slandering military veterans may surface.
Wealthy people would control the political discourse.
It would be totally different than the current situation.
Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 4:43 PM:... where by "complicated and unprecedented" you mean "illegal."
youngharry wrote on December 3, 2007 8:02 PM:Oh, my God...the Mother of all Horrors.
SHUT THE FUCKING PLACE DOWN---NOW!!!
reality check wrote on December 3, 2007 8:31 PM:Perhaps shutting it down is fine. But can anyone name a single bad thing this guy has done at the FEC? If you can't, then at least admit that punishment is what you want. Fine. But you have to weigh the actual bad thing he has done at his CURRENT agency befoe you go and suggest shutting something down.
Anonymous wrote on December 3, 2007 8:32 PM:Wait, guys. We're dealing with Democrats, right? The ones who voted for Mukasey as Attorney General after he wouldn't define waterboarding as torture, because someone worse might be given the power? Spakovsky's on the board. Get used to it.
anon wrote on December 3, 2007 10:56 PM:Reality Check:
NO, you don't. The whole point is that you don't approve unethical swine for important government posts. Period.