www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/004396.php
Paul Kiel - October 5, 2007, 5:06PM For Democrats, the stakes are high for Hans von Spakovsky's nomination to the Federal Election Commission. They say that a man who politicized the Justice Department and worked to disenfranchise voters has no place on the body regulating election issues. But the stakes for the fallout from his confirmation battle may be even higher. Right now, the fight over von Spakovsky's nomination is at a stalemate. Senate Republicans insist that if von Spakovsky isn't confirmed, then none of the other three nominees to the Federal Elections Commission will get a vote.
In holding the other three nominees hostage, the Republicans have a clear strategy. The commission typically has six members, three of them Republicans and three Democrats. If the Senate did not vote on any of the four nominees up for confirmation, then the commission would be down to only two members by the end of the year, which would effectively incapacitate it. To prevent that from happening, President Bush could stock the commission with recess appointees while Congress was out of session. Either one of those scenarios is "fraught with potential danger," Fred Wertheimer, the executive director of the nonpartisan watchdog Democracy 21, told me. If the FEC were crippled, that would be bad, he said, creating a situation where outside groups funded by millionaires (like the Swift Boat Vets) could run amok in a campaign year. "That would be a license to steal and to completely ignore campaign finance laws." But if the commission were stocked with the president's appointees, that would be much worse. "You could have an agency that leaves one party free to do whatever it wants, while raising concerns that the other party is breaking the law. "The whole fight at the Justice Department over the firing of the US attorneys has arisen over misusing the criminal justice system in order to influence political results.... Now, if you don't get some legitimate form of a commission ready to go for the 2008 election, you face the same danger, except with far greater stakes involved, mainly the presidency, the Senate and House -- who wins and who loses."
Civil Rights Division Advertisement Comments (20) oleeb wrote on October 5, 2007 5:32 PM: As though the only alternative is to take Bush's offer or forget it? Typical lilly-livered Democrats in Washington if you ask me. First, all confirmations for everything should be halted until the Dictator agrees to withdraw our troops from Iraq beginning as soon as possible and concluding no later than December 2008. Second, any BS nominee Bush puts up who clearly is nothing but a malevolent hack should be rejected out of hand. If he wants to nominate people then he needs to nominate people who are not clearly opposed to the policies they are to enforce and who do not have a history of partisan dirty tricks as does Baron Von Spakovsky. Democrats can play the obstruction game too, but it would require a littel backbone and some cajones and I don't see much of that from the crowd of August leaders we have elected to the US Congress supposedly as Democrats. ARG in Chicago wrote on October 5, 2007 5:33 PM: Seems like an impossible, lose-lose situation for Democrats. Yet another reason that impeachment seems like a logical path. Saint Augustine wrote on October 5, 2007 5:38 PM: The Senate must not let this man be cofirmed even if it means staying "in session" over the holidays to prevent a recess appointment. tbob wrote on October 5, 2007 5:38 PM: Gee, what a dilemma. Anonymous wrote on October 5, 2007 5:41 PM: Bush cannot make recess appointments if there is no recess. Anonymous wrote on October 5, 2007 5:41 PM: I guess Bush doesn't really want his Attorney General confirmed then. Saint Augustine wrote on October 5, 2007 5:45 PM: ARG in Chicago is right, impeachment would certainly fix this problem and many others. Hoilday spirits would be raised worldwide this year if we could sing: Joy to the World George Bush is Gone. LawyerSmith wrote on October 5, 2007 5:47 PM: No more recesses. Stay in session and while in session, draw up articles of impeachment and stop the madness. Some say there aren't enough votes to convict on impeachment - that can't be known until the trial in the Senate commences and after the evidence is heard, and after all the criminality of this adminstration is laid out for the public to see, there may not be a Pub left who won't vote for impeachment. Confront this President now or the next one will be much worse, no matter who it is. Five of Diamonds wrote on October 5, 2007 5:51 PM: All commenters here are right. By cowering to Republican strong-arming, they are empowering more of the same. Shadow Wolf wrote on October 5, 2007 6:06 PM: ARG & Augustine - impeachment would do NOTHING. Impeachment without conviction is meaningless, and conviction requires two thirds of the Senate. If you think that 17 Republicans will vote to make Nancy Pelosi the President of the United States, you are completely barking *insane*. LawyerSmith - it doesn't matter how much evidence there is, or how criminal the actions - the Republican party overwhelmingly SUPPORTS these criminal actions, after all. Not allowing any recesses, though - that's a good idea, and a workable one. eric wrote on October 5, 2007 6:10 PM: enough with the impeachment! You think Hillary, Edwards, and Obama want to see the speaker of the house become President? What you do is learn how to act as a partisan with pointed and value laden rhetoric to paint the other PARTY as inept and incapable of governing fairly and with a sense of common purpose. Foxman wrote on October 5, 2007 6:15 PM: With Democrats out-raising the Republicans in every venue (Presidential race, Senate, and the House) by significant margins this cycle, how is an ineffectual FEC a problem for the Dems? Saint Augustine wrote on October 5, 2007 6:29 PM: eric: Impeach Cheney and Bush. If they were smart they would resign to avoid having to face evidence against them. Foxman: With no members the committee can not take action to prevent election fraud. George Bush is lower than whale shit in the eyes of the world. Both parties have worked for the last half century to reduce the voting population, with great success. The RNC has great plans for disenfranchising voters in 2008; this just makes it slightly easier & the Dems can cry crocodile tears all the while. joejoejoe wrote on October 5, 2007 6:49 PM: "No FEC is far better than one that has no integrity." urbino wrote on October 5, 2007 6:53 PM: I'm certainly not an expert on the FEC, but as an outside observer of past elections, I frankly don't see how having the FEC "crippled" during next year would be a problem. Maybe they do a lot that we don't hear about, but I've never SEEN an instance where the FEC responded immediately, anyway. They take the complaint and maybe start an investigation, and sometime the following year you might hear about a fine or whatnot. They don't need a fully staffed board to accept complaints. If it's leave it unstaffed for a cycle or allow someone who fundamentally doesn't believe in the right to vote to be a member, that's not even a difficult choice: leave it unstaffed for a cycle. Anonymous wrote on October 5, 2007 7:00 PM: Before we get too excited about Democrats losing this round of "chicken," we should take a moment to notice that the White House has very little game on this one. The FEC is split, 3 seats for Republicans and 3 for Democrats, by law. Any appointments the president makes have to keep the balance between the two parties. The only thing a recess appointment gets around is the Senate confirmation. So if Bush wants to do an unprecedented end-run around the advice-and-consent rule just to appoint one Democrat for every Republican he names, well, be my guest. Also, your update notes how easy it is to shut down the threat of recess appointments in general, but the FEC would seem to be a special case -- especially for Republicans in Congress. Considering how likely it is that they'll be living with a Democratic White House in the near future, is this really the time to be ratcheting up presidential...
|
http://csua.com/feed/