Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell continues to hang tough against Democratic bullying on Federal Election Commission nominees. As CBS News earlier today reported:
Senate Majority [sic -- Freudian typo?] Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), said he would not allow Democrats a separate vote on each nominee and instead wanted the FEC nominees voted on as a package, which would ensure approval of the most controversial GOP pick, Hans von Spakovsky. Democrats have made it clear that von Spakovsky would not pass the Senate while the other four nominees would be approved.
The FEC consists of six commissioners, and the agency needs a minimum of four commissioners to meet a quorum and issue legal opinions. Since the beginning of this year, the FEC has had only two working commissioners and has been unable to deal with everything from John McCain's public financing to every day legal opinions on campaign ads.
McConnell said no deal has been made and he wants von Spakovsky approved along with the two pending Democrats and two pending Republican nominees.
McConnell said "they'll either let all six [ commissioners] go, or we will not have solved the problem."
The Democrats' opposition to von Spakovsky's nomination ostensibly arises from his support of voter identification to prevent election fraud. That position hardly should disqualify him for a seat on the FEC. Indeed, as the Wall Street Journal observed yesterday, "[l]ast week, a 6-to-3 Supreme Court majority agreed with Mr. von Spakovsky on voter ID." The WSJ added:
But don't expect that to sway Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who still refuses to confirm Mr. von Skakovsky as part of a traditional FEC nominee group of bipartisan pairs or even to confirm two other FEC nominees without him. How convenient. Blocking an FEC quorum opens up maneuvering room for Democrats in a year when they have the financial advantage.
The Democrats' strategy is as brilliant as it is cynical: Keep the FEC debilitated so that it has no oversight over Senator Obama, aka "Senator Moneybags", as the WSJ put it, whose fund raising is "headed for the stratosphere" and who is now more than "willing to renege on his pledge to accept public financing." And the Democrats continue to spin the problem as Senator McConnell's fault. Amazing.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Showing posts with label FEC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label FEC. Show all posts
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Annoy the New York Times: Vote Four Onto the FEC
Last fall the New York Times said it would be "Back-Scratching Across the Aisle" for Democrats to confirm the two Republican nominees for the Federal Election Commission at the same time the two Democratic nominees are confirmed. We would call such a vote an act of goodwill and bipartisanship, given that one party traditionally does not hold the other party's FEC nominee hostage in the confirmation process, as the Democrats have done with Republican Hans von Spakovsky.
Yesterday the backscratching was between the Democrats and the Times, which applauded the Democrats' continued obstructionism on the FEC confirmation vote. Indeed, the Times tries to flip the issue, claiming that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is to blame for not having caved to Democrats who want to stack the FEC with their own people.
The Times also resorts to name calling, saying von Spakovsky is "a notorious partisan who built a record at the Justice Department as an aggressive G.O.P. booster undermining voting rights for minorities and the poor." The proof? "He was a major proponent of a noxious Georgia law requiring voters to have photo ID’s."
Whether a voter should be required to prove his identity with a driver's license or equivalent is, at a minimum, an issue on which reasonable minds can disagree. It should not disqualify someone from serving on the FEC.
The Democrats should stop being obstinate and allow the Republicans to seat their two choices for the FEC along with the Democrats' two picks. As the Times recognizes, the FEC has important business to do, including enforcement of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. All four nominees should be confirmed so the FEC can get to work.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Yesterday the backscratching was between the Democrats and the Times, which applauded the Democrats' continued obstructionism on the FEC confirmation vote. Indeed, the Times tries to flip the issue, claiming that Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell is to blame for not having caved to Democrats who want to stack the FEC with their own people.
The Times also resorts to name calling, saying von Spakovsky is "a notorious partisan who built a record at the Justice Department as an aggressive G.O.P. booster undermining voting rights for minorities and the poor." The proof? "He was a major proponent of a noxious Georgia law requiring voters to have photo ID’s."
Whether a voter should be required to prove his identity with a driver's license or equivalent is, at a minimum, an issue on which reasonable minds can disagree. It should not disqualify someone from serving on the FEC.
The Democrats should stop being obstinate and allow the Republicans to seat their two choices for the FEC along with the Democrats' two picks. As the Times recognizes, the FEC has important business to do, including enforcement of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act. All four nominees should be confirmed so the FEC can get to work.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Obama Stonewalls FEC Nominees -- And Edwards' Matching Funds
As readers may recall, Senator Barack Obama is leading a pack of Democrats who oppose voting on confirmation of all of President Bush's four nominees to the Federal Election Commission at the same time. National media such as The Los Angeles Times have urged Obama to back down and support Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell's plan for an up-or-down vote on all four nominees (two Democrat, two Republican) so that we can have a fully functioning FEC. But Obama continues to hamstring the process.
Why is Obama such a roadblock? Here is one answer: to prevent his opponent John Edwards from obtaining federal matching funds.
According to Bloomberg,
the Federal Election Commission doesn't have enough members to oversee what is expected to be the most expensive election in U.S. history. Down to just two of its six commissioners, the FEC can't assemble the quorum of four votes required to approve federal campaign funds, enact regulations, undertake fraud investigations or provide legal advice to candidates.
As a result, Bloomberg reports, "John Edwards, who is relying on federal money to help fund his presidential campaign, may not get any more."
Poor Edwards may have to put his own money where his mouth is. Not that this would be a bad outcome if the federal campaign finance laws did not provide otherwise. It is offensive that taxpayer money is used to subsidize the speech of presidential candidates. It is a classic case of no good deed going unpunished to have to earn money to pay taxes that, in turn, finance multi-millionaire Edwards' campaign for big government that will raise our taxes even more.
Congress should change the law so that federal funds are no longer used to finance presidential campaigns. Simply put, if a candidate cannot raise enough money to pay for his or her campaign expenses, then that candidate lacks the necessary support from the electorate and should not be elected president. Senator Hillary Clinton and Obama, for example, are not likely to seek federal matching funds (and the restrictions that go along with them) -- a fact that demonstrates that those two are the most viable candidates for president on the Democratic side.
But the problem of taxpayer subsidies for presidential campaigns cannot be fixed for this election cycle, and Edwards is legally entitled to the matching funds. It is a horrible conflict of interest for Obama to engage in legislative maneuvering that prevents his rival from obtaining federal matching funds that, under the law, are rightfully his to use in the campaign. Obama and his Democratic supporters in the Senate should put an end to their antics and vote for McConnell's plan so that the FEC can get back to work and -- as much as it pains me to write this -- Edwards can get his money.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Why is Obama such a roadblock? Here is one answer: to prevent his opponent John Edwards from obtaining federal matching funds.
According to Bloomberg,
the Federal Election Commission doesn't have enough members to oversee what is expected to be the most expensive election in U.S. history. Down to just two of its six commissioners, the FEC can't assemble the quorum of four votes required to approve federal campaign funds, enact regulations, undertake fraud investigations or provide legal advice to candidates.
As a result, Bloomberg reports, "John Edwards, who is relying on federal money to help fund his presidential campaign, may not get any more."
Poor Edwards may have to put his own money where his mouth is. Not that this would be a bad outcome if the federal campaign finance laws did not provide otherwise. It is offensive that taxpayer money is used to subsidize the speech of presidential candidates. It is a classic case of no good deed going unpunished to have to earn money to pay taxes that, in turn, finance multi-millionaire Edwards' campaign for big government that will raise our taxes even more.
Congress should change the law so that federal funds are no longer used to finance presidential campaigns. Simply put, if a candidate cannot raise enough money to pay for his or her campaign expenses, then that candidate lacks the necessary support from the electorate and should not be elected president. Senator Hillary Clinton and Obama, for example, are not likely to seek federal matching funds (and the restrictions that go along with them) -- a fact that demonstrates that those two are the most viable candidates for president on the Democratic side.
But the problem of taxpayer subsidies for presidential campaigns cannot be fixed for this election cycle, and Edwards is legally entitled to the matching funds. It is a horrible conflict of interest for Obama to engage in legislative maneuvering that prevents his rival from obtaining federal matching funds that, under the law, are rightfully his to use in the campaign. Obama and his Democratic supporters in the Senate should put an end to their antics and vote for McConnell's plan so that the FEC can get back to work and -- as much as it pains me to write this -- Edwards can get his money.
Please note: The postings of "G. Morris", written by John K. Bush and which end in 2016, stated his views as of the dates of posting and should not be understood as current assertions of his views. The postings, which have not been altered since they came to an end, remain on this blog to preserve the historical record. In 2017, Mr. Bush took a position that precludes further public political comments or endorsements. He will no longer be contributing to this blog.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
Fischer's FEC Blunder
Page One recounts that Greg Fischer, the latest rich-guy who wants to take on Mitch McConnell, has already run afoul of federal campaign laws.
On Christmas Eve, Fischer sent out an email -- on his Dant Clayton corporate email account -- requesting resumes to serve as campaign finance staff. Here's the problem:
conducting campaign business via a corporate email account on corporate equipment is a violation of campaign finance law. That sort of activity? It’s considered a corporate contribution and doesn’t fly with the FEC.
Candidates for the finance positions, moreover, were directed to send their resumes to an employee of Fischer's corporation at its offices.
It brings back memories of Greg Stumbo failing to comply with federal election law when he flirted with running for McConnell's seat.
Here's Page One's clincher:
Not exactly a great way to get a campaign off the ground, is it? Being a wealthy, Republican-light self-funder trying his level best to alienate the core of the Democratic Party just doesn’t seem to be enough for Fischer.
Ouch!
On Christmas Eve, Fischer sent out an email -- on his Dant Clayton corporate email account -- requesting resumes to serve as campaign finance staff. Here's the problem:
conducting campaign business via a corporate email account on corporate equipment is a violation of campaign finance law. That sort of activity? It’s considered a corporate contribution and doesn’t fly with the FEC.
Candidates for the finance positions, moreover, were directed to send their resumes to an employee of Fischer's corporation at its offices.
It brings back memories of Greg Stumbo failing to comply with federal election law when he flirted with running for McConnell's seat.
Here's Page One's clincher:
Not exactly a great way to get a campaign off the ground, is it? Being a wealthy, Republican-light self-funder trying his level best to alienate the core of the Democratic Party just doesn’t seem to be enough for Fischer.
Ouch!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)