The good news about Hans von Spakovsky
withdrawing his name from FEC nomination should not obscure the need for a fundamental overhaul of the FEC. As Meredith McGehee writes in today's Roll Call (sub req'd), the months-long drama over the FEC highlights its overtly partisan and perpetually ineffective history, and
she calls for an overhaul to what she labels the "Failure to Enforce Commission."
Next year, Congress should deep-six the current FEC and replace it with a new agency as proposed in pending bipartisan legislation. Instead of a deadlocked commission, a new agency would consist of a chairman and two other members appointed by the president from different parties. The chairman, serving a 10-year term, would have broad powers to manage the agency. This structure will help avoid the deadlocks that have plagued the FEC and prevented proper enforcement, resulting in travesties such as the soft-money abuses by the presidential candidates and party committees in the 1996 elections and allowing the problems posed by 527s to explode. The new agency could impose civil monetary penalties or issue cease-and-desist orders in the event of violations, and enforcement proceedings would be conducted before impartial administrative law judges.
The resolution of the von Spakovsky stalemate was certainly overdue. But the stalemate is a symptom of the underlying problem intentionally built into the statute. The FEC was designed for deadlock. In theory, the 3-3 party split is to ensure balance and fairness. In reality, it ensures either partisan warfare that prevents enforcement action or partisan collusion such as that seen at the height of the now-banned soft-money system.
Can't help but enjoy today's Roll Call cartoon (the
original is on Roll Call's subscription-required website).
Roll Call asks an excellent question: when it comes to Members of Congress who come under criminal investigation, what is the rule for stepping down from important committee posts? The answer, simply put, is that there isn't one.
House rules provide only that when a Member is convicted of a crime carrying a sentence of more than two years, he or she "should not" engage in committee business or vote on the floor. Further action is up to the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct and the House membership.
Both parties have formal rules that a leader or committee chairman who's indicted automatically steps down from those posts, but there is no formal rule applying to rank-and-file Members.
Well, uh...that just sounds like an invitation to do nothing...
Oh, and what do you know?!
If you look at the surface of last week's overwhelming vote by the House in favor of extending the protections of the Voting Rights Act, you would think that everything was all right. Despite the presence of four amendments that would weaken the act, the House actually got a higher number of members to support reauthorization this time around (390) than it did 24 years ago (389). Even today's Roll Call signaled an easier time in the Senate: "VRA Moves Into Calmer Waters
Senators Expect Smooth Sailing," the headline over today's story read.
But then consider this: The House vote flew in the face of Speaker Dennis Hastert's plan to move only legislation supported by a majority of the 230-member House Republican caucus. It's true that a majority of both parties voted to pass the bill, but a majority of Republicans supported each of the amendments that would have seriously damaged, if not gutted, the Voting Rights Act. Only a strong showing of House Democrats' discipline kept the amendments out of the bill.