FEC, lobbyists, campaign reform
By Josh Zaharoff
Posted on Fri May 23, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM EST
Two Post editorials today on campaign finance and election issues.
The first criticizes the recent attention to lobbyists within the Obama and McCain campaigns, and includes a strong argument for public financing. My take: the Post is mostly right. They're wrong to dismiss the lobbyist question entirely--it IS a powerful illustration of how power players and powerful influences move within Washington and through federal campaigns--but they're right that it's not a long-term prescription for change.
This is, as we suspect both candidates know, a silly exercise. Lobbyists are a symptom of a larger problem that can't be fixed by turning them into political pariahs. The real problem is the distorting influence on public policy of moneyed interests; lobbyists are merely a particularly efficient delivery vehicle for the money that candidates need to satisfy their fundraising habits. The most effective cure would be to free lawmakers of this addiction by providing for public financing of campaigns, a solution that is, admittedly, a long way off.
The second piece takes a look at the FEC -- or
lack thereof -- and highlights one of the most egregiously partisan nomination maneuvers in an agency that is defined by partisan maneuvers.
This is good, but with a troubling twist. In sending up the new list, Mr. Bush axed Republican commissioner David M. Mason, a solid conservative whom Mr. Bush gave a recess appointment in 2005 and nominated for a second term in 2007 and who has continued serving in a holdover capacity as he awaits reconfirmation. What accounts for Mr. Bush's change of heart? The White House isn't saying. Could it be that Mr. Mason displeased the McCain for President campaign? Mr. Mason, as acting chairman, questioned whether the presumptive GOP nominee could legally withdraw from his pledge to abide by spending limits in return for matching funds during the presidential primaries.
It's important to get the FEC up and running again. Then, after the election, it will be time to renew the question of whether this agency, designed for gridlock and partisanship and all to often living up to those specifications, is the best device for enforcing the election laws.
The answer to this second question--which the Post saves for "after the election"--ought to be "no," as in, the FEC is not the right enforcement body for exactly those reasons above: it is designed for gridlock and partisanship. Other agencies are headed by single administrators and function effectively, when that administrator is competent. That's what we ought to create in lieu of the perpetually disappointing FEC.
Tags: money in politics, election 08, public financing, clean elections, fec, lobbying reform (all tags)
You are not logged in.
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account just by filling out the form below. It's quick and free.
