The FEC has been effectively shut down since December because the Senate refused to confirm appointees to the Commission, leaving it short of the quorum necessary to do business. The heart of the dispute was the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky, who had previously worked in the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division.
I celebrated the effective shuttering of the Commission because, well, I like freedom, and the FEC isn’t exactly a bastion of it. Indeed, the prospect of going through a Presidential election without a functioning FEC, matching funds or silly advisory opinions positively filled me with glee.
Unfortunately, true to form, the White House caved yesterday, aided and abetted by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. (You can read his statement below the fold.) Under an agree struck with Senate Democrats, the Senate will confirm three nominees and be allowed to defeat von Spakovsky separately.
So, in a few weeks, the FEC will be back up and running. What a total bummer.
UPDATE: Bob Bauer, one of the top election law specialists in either party (and is also Counsel to Senator Obama’s campaign) weighs in, accusing the White House of trying to shape the Commission in a way that benefits Senator McCain. Both the timing and the decision not to reappoint Commissioner Mason support Bauer’s argument. Professor Hasen also weighs in with similar thoughts. It’s hard to argue with either point of view.
So now, two of my favorite saw-horses have come together: Disappointment that the FEC is back in business and even more evidence that Senator McCain’s reformer persona is nothing but a disingenuous act by a fundamentally dishonest politician.
Based on the discussion at Monday’s arguments, five or more Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court may believe that the government must overcome its highest burden for justifying its attempt to restrict a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms.
I’ll leave further discussion of that issue to Cam’s expertise while I turn to another question: What are the implications of their views on other individual liberties that are specifically named in the Constitution? For example, the freedoms of speech, press and religion that are outlined in the First Amendment.
It seems to me that, if anything, the rights protected in the First Amendment are just as clear — if not more so — than the second. Consider the language:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
For more than two hundreds years, the debate about the Second Amendment has hung on the Framers’ collective decision to explain themselves with a bunch of language about necessity and security and their relationship to having a militia. Imagine if it read this way: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Not much grey area there, huh? And there would be no need to debate the definition of “militia,” because the term doesn’t appear. Constructed this way, the amendment is absolute, and absolutely clear.
Now, go back and read the First Amendment again. “Congress shall make no law…” The language is so simple, and utterly clear. There is no grey area. No explanation. No modifying language. Nothing.
Focus on the speech provision. “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech.”
Laying aside the long-standing legal debate over the definitions of “abridging” and “speech,” consider the legal standards at play. In the McConnell case, the Supreme Court invented a messy legal standard that not even experts can decipher effectively. As applied in that case, the standard was low enough to allow the government to effectively regulate almost anything it wants. Applying the same “compelling interest” standard in McConnell that it is considering in the D.C. gun law case would, in my view, have rendered an entirely different result — one that would have found BCRA and other laws banning certain varieties of speech unconstitutional.
And that seems only logical. The language is so clear. So obvious to anyone who just, you know, reads it. So why must the court get wrapped around its axle? The answer, of course, is precedent.
It will be interesting to see how cases involving the Second Amendment evolve the Court’s reasoning in light of its decision. Here’s hoping the Court’s language in the D.C. gun case clear enough to avoid misunderstanding. I’m not holding my breath.
There’s an interesting story in the New York Times today about a study of how campaign contributions affected judicial rulings in Louisiana. The study asserts that judges are biased toward their contributors.
I don’t know whether the study is accurate or not, but at the end, who cares.
Judges shouldn’t be in the position to take contributions in the first place. They shouldn’t be elected.
Elected judges just invites problems. Judges should have one master: the law. Judges cannot and should not be accountable to voters. Making them so fairly raises the question of their motives and bias in their rulings. Did they hand down an extra long sentence so they could include in their re-election mail? Uphold a dicey product liability verdict because they were afraid of a backlash from voters sympathetic to the plaintiffs?
Justice can’t be for sale. And it shouldn’t subject to the whims of politics. That’s why federal judges are appointed for life. States and localities ought to adopt a similar approach.
I missed it over the holiday break, but it seems that the FEC is closed for a while.
This is a great of example of Congressional deadlock yielding a good result. Here’s hoping the Senate remains at an impasse on confirmation of these commissioners for years to come.
Want to know more? Here’s a great post from expert Bob Bauer
I don’t like John McCain. I believe him to be dishonest. Friends who have heard me speak about McCain are often surprised at the depth of the disgust that I feel about the Arizona Senator. For me, he — not the system he attacks so ferociously — is the prime example of what’s wrong with Washington.
So today’s Drudge Report bombshell doesn’t really surprise me at all. Neither does McCain’s apparently casual lie that he has “not been in talks with The New York Times.” An assertion later contradicted by The Politico and his own personal lawyer, who is preparing written answers to the NYT’s questions.
The major question, though, is simple: How much will the story damage McCain’s campaign? McCain’s ham-handed response only ensured that the story would attract substantial coverage. And if Drudge’s latest update is to be believed, the NYT story in question may now run on Friday, ensuring that McCain will get to endure the story through the weekend.
For years, the media overlooked McCain’s hypocrisy and dishonesty because they liked his schtick. Over the last couple of years, however, many reporters seemed to turn on their old pal. How will they treat him now?
It would be wishful thinking to suggest that this will cripple McCain’s campaign. But it could open the spigot on a serious of stories that erode McCain’s carefully contrived Mr. Clean image. And to understand the implications of that, you need only review today’s statement from the McCain campaign which tries fruitlessly to emphasize the very characteristics that the allegedly impending NYT article will call in to question.
George Will has the story.
The six-person FEC — three members from each party — enforces the rules it writes about how Americans are permitted to participate in politics. You thought the First Amendment said enough about that participation? Silly you.
The FEC’s policing powers may soon be splendidly paralyzed. Three current FEC members, two Democrats and one Republican, are recess appointees whose terms will end in a few days when this session of Congress ends — unless they are confirmed to full six-year terms.
And Democrats are effectively blocking all three confirmations. I’ve rarely rooted more strongly for Congressional inaction.
Cuz that’s exactly what we need… welfare for politicians.
I could write a screed on this, I suppose. But I really don’t feel like it. This is a dumb idea. Period.
Raising money helps candidates build early support. It also lets donors make their voices heard in the political process.
Then there’s the matter of my tax dollars going to fund local television stations — since 80 percent or so of election spending goes straight into the pockets of local broadcasters. Oh yeah, and my tax dollars funding the heaven-knows-what predilictions of candidates for federal office.
Under current law, the budgets that fund Congressional offices are already used for automobile leases, foreign travel and who knows what else.
No. Not one more tax dollar. Not for campaign funding. Let the candidates work for it. And spend my tax dollars where they belong: national defense, infrastructure, and the like.
Jim: You know what else is weird? How have the netroots demonstrated influence? In presidential elections with dozens of millions of people voting, their numbers don’t amount to much, nor a Senate campaign with millions of votes, or even a House race with hundreds or tens of thousands of votes, because they’re dispersed. No, so far the netroots have demonstrated some power and influence because they’re an effective way to raise money for their preferred candidates.
And Kos, king of the netroots, wants to federalize the part of the political process that he and his allies have demonstrated the most influence and ability in. Doesn’t make much sense.
Quick question for fans of federal financing of campaigns - how do you feel about taking tax dollars from African-Americans and giving federal funding to, say, David Duke? Oh, that scenario you don’t like, huh?
The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday that “Political ad-makers Russ Schriefer and Stuart Stevens, veterans of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 campaigns, on Monday emailed the new campaign manager — lobbyist and longtime McCain adviser Rick Davis — to say that they were quitting.”
I had the pleasure of briefly sharing some office space with Schriefer and Stevens many years ago. I’m certain they don’t remember me, but I sure remember them. They were creative and smart, and they were outstanding campaign strategists. Since then, they have established themselves as leading ad men on the Republican side of the aisle. They were essential to President Bush’s victory in 2000 and his re-election in 2004. And they are constantly in demand to work on the biggest races for Congress, U.S. Senate and Governor.
Now, they are free agents and Senator McCain is without their creativity and insight.
It’s the final nail in the coffin for Senator McCain’s campaign. The constellation of stars that he assembled is now completely gone. His campaign is financially and politically bankrupt. Senator McCain has made himself an anathema in his own party.
Over at RedState, Krempasky wrote recently that he would love to support Senator McCain — for re-election to the U.S. Senate. That sounds about right to me. But whether he stays in the Senate or not, it’s time for Senator McCain to end his Presidential campaign and maintain at least a shred of grace and dignity.
Jim’s post last week articulating 11 ideas that, he hoped, could attract support from 90 percent or more of conservatives and / or Republicans, was amazing. It was well considered and well presented. It’s taken me a week to respond only because I aspired — fruitlessly I suspect — to offer a response of equal thoughtfulness.
In this post, I try to respond to Jim’s offering as well as the thoughts of some of our commenters. (By the way, I would remiss if I didn’t thank the raft of folks who graced us with their thoughts on insights. I very much hope that you’ll continue to visit On Tap and contribute to our dialogue.)
Responding to Jim
First, broadly, I really think Jim is onto something. It’s impossible to build or rebuild a movement without ideas, and in particular, a set of ideas that bring us together. The Democrats have illustrated this rather well over the last fifteen years. It was only when they united behind their hatred for President Bush that they ultimately prevailed.
It seems to me that the ideas must accomplish two objectives. First, they must genuinely further the conservative philosophy. Second, they must be winners at the polls. In other words, we’re looking for ideas that bring us together while equipping us with a message that will attract voters’ support.
Finally, a history lesson. Jim’s work was based on the idea of the Contract with America. It’s worth recalling that the Contract included a handful of big, bold core principles with a wealth of detailed policy proposals. But it’s significance in the 1994 elections is almost always overstated. We should use it for a model only insofar as it accomplished the goals that I’ve set forth.
WIth that in mind, let me address Jim’s ideas in order: