As Primaries Begin, the FEC Will Shut Down

[robcon]

Source: WashingtonPost.com

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.



Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/21/AR2007122102299_pf.html

---

Timing is ironic... no FEC during the presidential campaigns.

[geomon666]

1. So they can funnel in tons of illegal cash and nobody does shit about it?

Man this administration doesn't stop for a second.

[liberalnurse]

2. That will hurt McCain too.

Maybe Joementum can bat his eyelashes and fix things.

[FreakinDJ]

3. Good riddence to them

What the Hell do we need an over-paid "Swift Boat" rubber stamp committi for anyway.

[Trillo]

4. They have 375 employees

but nobody can make particular decisions, or even answer the phone?

What IDIOT came up with that hierarchical stupidity?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

5. not that they did their job in '04.

hmmmm.

[K Gardner]

6. This topic deserves more attention that it's getting, IMO. First and foremost,

if our candidates who applied for matching funds can't access that money, that leaves us with the only candidate (or maybe two) who is rich with corporate money to fund his/her campaign. And if one of those candidates has already been so slandered by name-calling and surrogate attacks, it leaves only one. No coincidence there, I don't think.

[creeksneakers2]

8. The closing has nothing to do with what candidates want

Bush nominated a lawyer to serve on the commission that was involved in decisions at the Voting Rights Section of the Justice Department like voter ID laws that would end up with eligible voters at the polls, mostly minorities and senior citizens, being told they couldn't vote.

There is whole list of reasons why the Bush nominee was unacceptable. Rather than submit a nominee that was more suitable, Bush and the Republicans have cut off all other nominations to the Commission, leaving it without a quorum.

The choice that Democrats had was to either cave in and approve Bush's terrible nominee or stand up to Bush and let the commission close. When Bush's nominee first came up the net was full of angry posts about how the Democrats were going to cave in to Bush. Now that the Democrats stand up to Bush, the net is angry too. Some can't be pleased.

The Democrats probably made the right decision here. Its hard to tell, since this is one of the few times the Democrats have taken Bush on directly in what could end up being a high profile fight. If the press pays attention, and the whole story gets told, both about how Bush's nominee didn't protect the voting rights of minorities and how the GOP let the commission close rather than replacing the nominated scum bucket, perhaps the public will learn just what Bush and the Republicans are all about. If Democrats win a big one, maybe they'll have more courage in the future.

Its a shame that Edwards might have to wait for his matching money but Hillary has nothing whatsoever to do with that. Its sad how quickly and easily her accusers make allegations with no basis in fact.

[K Gardner]

9. I honestly didn't know the history behind this. Sincere in my thanks to you for

taking the time to explain it to me :-)

[MGKrebs]

21. I believe this is also related to why Congress is preventing recess appointments.

So that Bush doesn't force his nominee in.
Also, the FEC doesn't actually have any money right now anyway. I read recently that they wouldn't be able to start disbursing matching funds until income tax revenue started rolling in.

[ryanmuegge]

15. But the system isn't rigged. Honestly!

[Liberty Belle]

7. The Grinch who stole the White House will do it again,

by stealing funds right out of our Democratic candidates' campaign coffers!

We need more recommendations, folks, so everyone can read this.

[jeff30997]

10. K&R

[balantz]

11. K & R

[bronxiteforever]

12. K & R

[Liberty Belle]

13. Can Democrats sue? Get an injunction? There must be some way

to force Bush to provide a nominee acceptable to Congress rather than essentially hold a presidential race hostage by shutting down the FEC. Democrats should give Shrub an ultimatum - appoint someone tolerable NOW or impeachment papers get filed tomorrow, period. Or just file them anyhow, God knows there is more than ample justification.

[harmonicon]

14. I can only assume this is a good thing

I think, after 7 years, we've learned that no one does a better job than a Bush nominee.... literally - they're worse than zero.

[progressoid]

16. Well, I'm sure this will all work out for the best.

:eyes:

[Gonnuts]

17. Yeah ...

keep relying on this corrupt government to fix things.

What a joke. The more you look at it the worse it gets. This is without a doubt the most corrupt this government has ever been - and that's saying something. They keep taking our money, producing farciful results, spit in our faces and demand more of our money.

Why do you keep on paying them? I don't get it? We keep paying this government to repress us? Why? Would you pay to have your house painted before hand, not have it painted, than pay the same painters again to not paint your house? And again? And again? And not only are they not painting my house, I'm losing money on my house, like I lost my job, freedoms, rights and pride over the past 7 years because of these Mad-Hatter morons with some Masonic death-wish.

They ask me why I'm not paying my taxes I'm telling them to paint my house first. And while they're at it they can get us out of Iraq, hold some blatantly criminal politicians accountable, give all citizens that can't afford it free health care, give us free schools that actually educate, quit putting money above people, stop calling this country peaceful when we have over 700 military bases in 130 countries, start putting more money into construction instead of destruction and then I'll say if they do all the latter first, I'll finish painting my house.

Screw it! This government has taken this man as far as I'm going to go. I'm losing everything anyway. Why are the vast majority of the people, many less fortunate than me, supposed to take the blunt of punishment for something our government isn't doing? If this government can't provide us with anything tangible, something we want, than damn it, they'll see no money.

[dave123williams]

18. Wow. Just in case you thought the system wasn't totally corrupt....

[Broadslidin]

19. If there actually was an FCC thought of "policing political spending", I'll Eat My New Tie..!

:9

[frogcycle]

20. congress should pass an emergency bill cutting the FEC to three members

needing only 2 votes to make a decision

force the asshole to veto that.