Revealed: Key Files on Big-Ticket Political Donations Vanish at Federal Election Commission

[xchrom]

http://www.alternet.org/news/156329/revealed%3A_key_files_on_big-ticket_political_donations_vanish_at_federal_election_commission_/

_640x480_310x220

The Federal Election Commission has long been the go-to source for tracking political money. So when it starts cleansing politically hot contributions from its files, it matters. Big time.

We have discovered that sometime after January of this year, the FEC deleted a whole set of contributions totaling millions of dollars made during the 2007-2008 election cycle. The most important of these files concern what is now called “dark money” – funds donated to ostensible charities or public interest groups rather parties, candidates or conventional political action committees (PACs). These non-profit groups – which Washington insiders often refer to generically as 501(c)s, after the section of the federal tax code regulating them – use the money to pay for allegedly educational “independent” ads that run outside conventional campaign channels. Such funding has now developed into a gigantic channel for evading disclosure of the donors’ identities and is acutely controversial.

In 2008, however, a substantial number of contributions to such 501(c)s made it into the FEC database. For the agency quietly to remove them almost four years later with no public comment is scandalous. It flouts the agency’s legal mandate to track political money and mocks the whole spirit of what the FEC was set up to do. No less seriously, as legal challenges and public criticism of similar contributions in the 2012 election cycle rise to fever pitch, the FEC’s action wipes out one of the few sources of real evidence about how dark money works. Obviously, the unheralded purge also raises unsettling questions about what else might be going on with the database that scholars and journalists of every persuasion have always relied upon.


Why the FEC Was Created

Federal regulatory agencies are often the offspring of epic scandals. The Federal Election Commission is no exception. It was created in the aftermath of Watergate to do for political money what the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) did for securities markets in the New Deal: End an anything-goes saturnalia of corruption through a mix of tough new regulations and “sunlight” – in this case, open, transparent publication of who is trying to buy whom with campaign contributions.

[mucifer]

1. After the supreme court ruling why bother even having a FEC

[dballance]

2. Shouldn't they have a backup of the files?

There should be a backup at a secure off site facility.

[Cerridwen]

3. Revealed: FEC updating its website and datasets

and the organization of its files to be easier to access.

It appears the process began at the beginning of 2012. Public comment and input was (is still?) welcomed at their blog. Their blog is also where they talk about the coming changes and updates.

We've started work on several projects for the 2012 election cycle. Take a look at this list and let us know if we've missed something important or if you have ideas about anything you see here. We plan to have several of these ready for the April quarterly filings this year while others (presidential campaign summaries, more itemized data files) may take a little longer.



We're continuing to work on new data sets for the catalog. At the top of the list is a set of files that will (eventually) replace the standard files on our FTP server. We're thinking specifically of contributions from individuals to any organization that files with us (e.g. indiv10.zip), contributions and expenditures by committees that are directed at candidates (e.g. pas210.zip) and any transactions where an entity registered with us is involved as both the filer (the one reporting the transaction) and also the recipient or other party to the transaction (e.g. oth10.zip). Our plan is first to duplicate the transactions that appear in these files right now on the FTP server but adding additional information (e.g. separating occupation and employer fields) and offering format choices for download (XML, CSV, etc.).


We know this is really important, but it also represents big technical challenges for us. We're looking at lots of alternatives for searching and distributing very large files (millions of rows) and while we're making progress we haven't settled on a single approach yet.


Should we change the definitions of what's included in these files? For example, do we still need to separate individuals in their own file or should there just be a file with all detailed receipt transactions?
2012 Plans

More information and updates at the blog link above.

This is also the second time in as many days I've found an article on alternet that has left out key pieces of information in order to spin an event into an anti-government screed.

[LiberalFighter]

8. The trouble with too many reporters is they don't use their minds critically

or they are just plain jerks trying to agitate and mislead others.

As I say, government is not the problem, Republicans are the problem.

I get tired of people complaining about govt being too big. And they don't provide data to back it up. It may be bigger for the right reasons. Such as population growth. Saves money. Better administration.

[Cerridwen]

10. I think our federal government,

with the exception(s) perhaps of DHS and the various military contractors, is already shrunk and sitting uneasily at the bottom of a slowly draining bath tub. As more and more money is funnelled to "national security" there is less and less for the social safety nets and care for, and protection of, the commons.

When I hear or read someone arguing the government is "too big," I know they've not a clue about what they're saying.

[siligut]

4. Subversives in the hen-house

We are on the outside looking in. We cannot say for sure who decided to make the deletions or why. But one fact is telling: the missing files include essentially all those of one type in particular – donors to the so-called “501(c) 4” “charitable” organizations now in the eye of the storm over dark money.

We need to know who authorized these deletions and whether any more have occurred. This requires a formal inquest and, in the future, serious safeguards, such as outside review committees with members capable of detecting them if democracy is not to be mocked and the law flouted. Even banana republics don’t stoop to this.

Follow the money (the missing data on it at least) and I bet it will lead you to the not so honorable Republicans in our Congress.

[patrice]

5. K&R

[bonniebgood]

6. I recently visited the FEC site and went through their

organization chart. they are budgeted 70 million a year of tax payer money. A certain amount of money is budgeted just for the maintenance of their computer systems. I came away with the same question. Why do we need the FEC after Citizen United?
The head person in charge, just like the United Stated Post Office is appointed by Bush.
Does anyone expect things to work as intended with all Bush people still at the Helms of the United States Government? These people are more loyal to republican ideology and not to the United States Constitution or the people.

Their terms are appointed and limited to i think 7 years, I see some has been there more than 11 year terms. why? This is the exact reason why our government will fall from within.
All these republicans in head position in most all departments have coordinated religiously to destroy the united states using tax payer money to do it.

[spanone]

7. k&r..

[SDjack]

9. Does not matter. The FEC has been dysfunctional, thanks to the Repthug members

since Dimwit Bush was first elected. It is totally paralyzed. It is a waste of money.