F.E.C. Can’t Curb 2016 Election Abuse, Commission Chief Says

[Omaha Steve]

Source: NY Times

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON — The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”

Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the agency’s six commissioners. They are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties along party lines on key votes because of a fundamental disagreement over the mandate of the commission, which was created 40 years ago in response to the political corruption of Watergate.

Some commissioners are barely on speaking terms, cross-aisle negotiations are infrequent, and with no consensus on which rules to enforce, the caseload against violators has plummeted.

FULL story at link.



Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, says the gridlocked agency cannot rein in financial abuses. Credit Kendrick Brinson for The New York Times

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?partner=EXCITE&ei=5043

[turbinetree]

1. This is

totally unacceptable.
After reading the NYT article it made my blood boil.

Money is not free speech its corruption of the free speech.

Watergate was a outright criminal enterprise set up buy the re-election committee for Richard Nixon and the slush fund that he used for the criminal enterprise.
And now the Commission to prevent this from happening, is hampered and has been basically been taken apart by the right wing U.S. Supreme Court, and the attacks on the IRS to back this political corruption, by republicans defunding that agency also.
I think its time for "citizens" to go to this hearing and other hearing to demand some answers, we are paying them to stop this nonsense

If anyone thinks that this election is not important, they are mistaken---------------its about Citizens United and the Republican Justice (lack of justice) of the John Roberts majority and the right wing U.S. Supreme Court.

[JDPriestly]

5. And that is one of the reasons that so many of us support Bernie Sanders.

A vote for Bernie is a vote for clean election funding and against the oligarchy's election funding.

That is a major and decisive difference between Hillary and Bernie.

Hillary takes money from the oligarchs and the big corporations. Bernie does not. Go to his website. Go to the donation page. He asks his donors to state that they are not corporations, not government contractors and are giving their own money. Does any other candidate do that? I think not.

If for no other reason, we should nominate Bernie Sanders in order to clean up our government -- at least the White House.

[okaawhatever]

7. Hillary Clinton supports campaign finance reform, even if it requires a Constitutional

Amendment. Yes, she takes money from Wall Street. They were, after all, her constituents. Let's see if Bernie keeps his promise to not take money from corps in the Presidential race.

[brooklynite]

9. Hillary Clinton has pledged to appoint SC Justices to overturn CU

...You may think Sanders' positions are stronger, but if he doesn't win (in part because he likely won't have the funds to compete against the Republicans), CU will continue to be the law of the land.

By the way: were you referring to limitations like this?:

I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident of the U.S.
I am making this contribution on a personal card with my own personal funds, not those of another person or entity.
I am not a federal contractor.

Straight from the Hillary Clinton website.

[former9thward]

10. That is also from any Republican website.

It is lawyer boilerplate language.

[pscot]

2. No wonder Stewart's quitting

The satire is built-in.

[diabeticman]

3. B.S.

[BlueJazz]

4. I DO appreciate the straightforwardness of Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman.

She doesn't try to Mealy-mouth the situation.

[calimary]

6. This is just pathetic.

Thank you government haters and "nobody tells ME what to do" assholes!

This is the kind of shit you get, then. One of these days, one of those regulations that can't get through - will be something YOU care about, and it won't get done.

[Gregorian]

8. There it is: I predict big money sees Bernie, and will simply pull out all of the stops.

They can't afford to play by humanitarian rules. And being the noncommercial candidate, Bernie Sanders just won't have access to the big corporate money.

David and Golliath. I hope.

Am I reading too much into this?

Edit- But...It's whom wins the election that counts. Not who received the most donations. It might not be all doom and gloom for the noncommercial candidate.

[malthaussen]

11. I applaud your honesty, Commisioner...

... but in that case, what are we paying you for?

-- Mal

[Hugin]

12. Regulatory capture at it's worst.

But, 2016 will all be blamed on lazy Democrats not voting.