# The FEC throws up its hands and surrenders **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [May 3, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156 "2015-05-03T16:42:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/1 "2015-05-03T16:42:05Z")
[Article](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?smid=tw-share). The Federal Election Commission chair has stated that 2016 election abuses cannot be curbed because of the composition of the the commission and the fact that they vote 3-3 on party lines. What this means is that polling place intimidation, illegal contributions, resurgent Jim Crow activities, etc. will be able to take place unchecked. This has been the aim of certain political types since the turn of the century: to set up a system that is skewed heavily to the conservative point of view, and then to hamstring any regulatory effort to control it. > [@](#): > > Republican members of the commission see no such crisis. They say they are comfortable with how things are working under the structure that gives each party three votes. No action at all, they say, is better than overly aggressive steps that could chill political speech. > > “Congress set this place up to gridlock,” Lee E. Goodman, a Republican commissioner, said in an interview. “This agency is functioning as Congress intended. The democracy isn’t collapsing around us.” ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/2 "2015-05-03T17:53:20Z")
Once again, the GOP reaffirms its reputation as the party that says government doesn’t work, and then gets elected and proves it. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/3 "2015-05-03T18:57:43Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > What this means is that polling place intimidation, illegal contributions, resurgent Jim Crow activities, etc. will be able to take place unchecked. Emphasis added. [The FEC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission) has no jurisdiction over those things. I didn’t underline “etc” because I have no idea what you mean, but it’s unlikely that is under the FEC’s jurisdiction as well since campaign finance (which you already mentioned) is the sole area of that body’s jurisdiction. > [@](#): > > Although the Commission’s name implies broad authority over U.S. elections, in fact its role is limited to the administration of federal campaign finance laws. ---
**Author:** ![Chefguy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chefguy/32/138_2.png) [@Chefguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chefguy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/4 "2015-05-03T19:27:33Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Emphasis added. [The FEC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission) has no jurisdiction over those things. I didn’t underline “etc” because I have no idea what you mean, but it’s unlikely that is under the FEC’s jurisdiction as well since campaign finance (which you already mentioned) is the sole area of that body’s jurisdiction. Thanks for the clarification. It’s more than enough of a problem, of course, with some $10 billion in play. ---
**Author:** ![Stringbean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d6d6ee/32.png) [@Stringbean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stringbean)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/5 "2015-05-03T19:29:33Z")
Yes. Blatant attempts to stop voting such as [polling place intimidation](https://youtu.be/neGbKHyGuHU) should absolutely be prosecuted. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/6 "2015-05-03T19:57:20Z")
> [@Stringbean](#): > > Yes. Blatant attempts to stop voting such as [polling place intimidation](https://youtu.be/neGbKHyGuHU) should absolutely be prosecuted. Even the Bush administration did not found what you complain about here. [http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/39861.html) > [@](#): > > “My fellow conservatives on the commission had this wild notion they could bring Eric Holder down and really damage the president,” Thernstrom said in an interview with POLITICO. > > The criticism has focused attention not just on Thernstrom, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, but on the partisan nature of the Civil Rights Commission and on a story that, like the controversy over the anti-poverty group ACORN, has raged almost completely outside the mainstream media. > > The facts of the case are relatively simple. Two men were captured on a video standing outside a polling place in a black Philadelphia neighborhood on Election Day in 2008. One of the men had a nightstick, if an unclear agenda — though a member of the black nationalist New Black Panther Party, he had earlier professed loathing for the Democratic “puppet” candidate, Barack Obama, who went on to overwhelmingly carry that precinct. > > Three Republican poll monitors filed complaints of intimidation — itself a federal crime — but no voters attested to being turned away. The Justice Department, while Bush was still president, investigated the incident and later, after Obama took office, decided that “the facts and the law did not support pursuing” the claims against the party and against a second, unarmed man, Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said. So, not as important as many were led to believe, and those believers came mostly from FOX news. And that is IMHO a big problem. > [@](#): > > But even as the conservative commissioners debate their differences, another clear casualty of the debate has been the vestiges of a national conversation. > > Many people who do not watch Fox News or follow conservative media have never heard of the issue. The disconnect was painfully clear to Rep. Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), who, when asked about the controversy at a recent town hall meeting in his district, admitted to constituents that he’d never heard of it. > > “What this shows is just how polarized we’ve become as a country,” Sherman told POLITICO. > > Sherman said he thought the Justice Department had “mishandled” the Panther case but blamed what he called the “manipulative cowards at Fox News” for blowing it out of proportion. > > “I grew up during the Vietnam War, and you had people on both sides, but they were getting their facts from the same place,” Sherman said. “We have polarized political parties and, for the first time in 100 years, polarized journalism as well.” ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/7 "2015-05-03T20:50:40Z")
Good. “Campaign finance reform” is a smokescreen to censor political speech, and anything that keeps the activist Democrats on the commission from enforcing this agenda is to be lauded. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/8 "2015-05-03T21:53:02Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > Good. “Campaign finance reform” is a smokescreen to censor political speech, and anything that keeps the activist Democrats on the commission from enforcing this agenda is to be lauded. _Censoring political speech_ is a nonsense catchphrase often used by people who think buying elections is the bee’s knees. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/9 "2015-05-03T22:00:05Z")
> [@Chefguy](#): > > resurgent Jim Crow activities What exactly is a “resurgent Jim Crow activity”? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/10 "2015-05-03T22:05:31Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > What exactly is a “resurgent Jim Crow activity”? That’s when a bunch of southern states who were originally set for special attention when changing their voting laws, got free of that special attention thanks to a SCOTUS ruling, and the very next day pushed through voter ID laws that disproportionately impose burdens on demographics likely to vote Democrat. I’m surprised you’ve never heard of it. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2015, 10:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/11 "2015-05-03T22:32:21Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > _Censoring political speech_ is a nonsense catchphrase often used by people who think buying elections is the bee’s knees. “Buying elections” is a nonsense catchphrase always used by people who think censoring political speech is the bee’s knees. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/12 "2015-05-04T00:27:39Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > “Buying elections” is a nonsense catchphrase always used by people who think censoring political speech is the bee’s knees. No, it’s literally referring to rich people throwing their money in to influence elections. The Koch bros want to purchase a GOP government because it gives them a better business environment. Well, that, and they’re Libertarian dipshits. If you think that campaign finance reform is the same thing as destroying free speech, you defacto believe in letting the richest put their thumbs on the scale. That’s repugnant, and certainly not something that most people believe in. Unless you couch it in obfuscatory language like, “censoring political speech.” No one is saying that you shouldn’t have the right to say what you believe. They’re saying that money shouldn’t be used in limitless quantity to saturate the media with one message over another. Buying elections is accurate. Censoring political speech is histrionics. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/13 "2015-05-04T00:41:10Z")
I’m always amazed at how conservatives rail about the corruption of government and how easily politicians can be bought (which they actually share with liberals), EXCEPT when it comes to campaign finance. THEN everyone is trustworthy and everything is hunky-dory. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/14 "2015-05-04T00:59:11Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > No, it’s literally referring to rich people throwing their money in to influence elections. “Influence”…“purchase”…why won’t you acknowledge that what you are talking about is preventing people from engaging in political speech? That’s SUPPOSED to be an opportunity to “influence” others. > [@](#): > > The Koch bros want to purchase a GOP government because it gives them a better business environment. Well, that, and they’re Libertarian dipshits. They want to help their preferred candidates buy commercials. That’s their right. The 2.5 billion dollars Hillary Clinton plans to raise will probably counter it, just as all the caterwauling about Mitt Romney “buying the election” resulted in Obama being re-elected. The arrogance of the Democrats is only matched by their cowardice – are you really that afraid of people hearing other viewpoints that you have to tear up the First Amendment? Can’t your platform stand on its own merits? > [@](#): > > If you think that campaign finance reform is the same thing as destroying free speech, Then I am merely paying attention. > [@](#): > > obfuscatory language like, “censoring political speech.” No one is saying that you shouldn’t have the right to say what you believe. They’re saying that money shouldn’t be used in limitless quantity to saturate the media with one message over another. Plusgood doublethink there. > [@](#): > > Buying elections is accurate. Censoring political speech is histrionics. I’ll just paste in this explanation I provided in another thread: > [@Hillary went straight demographic warfare](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hillary-went-straight-demographic-warfare/717600/128): > > I will walk you through it, as you probably don’t know all the relevant facts if you’ve been getting your news from Stephen Colbert. > > Under both the text of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 and the Federal Election Commission’s interpretations, the act of “speaking critically about a political candidate” was held to a be “campaign contribution in kind” to all possible and actual, present and future opponents of that candidate. Also under the BCRA, corporations and labor unions were blanketly banned from paying for such communications. > > Under this doctrine, the FEC barred the scheduled offering over pay-per-view cable of a conservative film critical of Hillary Clinton, as it was funded by Citizens United, a conservative activist group which is incorporated. > > Citizens United sued the FEC, and, in 2010, the Supreme Court found that laws blanketly prohibiting political speech from classes of speakers are a violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. > > Now, the spin that the pro-“campaign finance reform” people put on this case was that it > > 1. barred all regulation of campaign funding under the doctrine that ‘money is speech’ > 2. created the doctrine that ‘corporations are people’ to justify itself > > Neither of these things are true. In fact, the decision only overruled the attempt by the BRCA and the FEC to treat _speech as money_ as a means to regulate speech under campaign finance laws. Congress is still free to pass just about any restriction it likes on who may donate money to a politician or how much, but has seen fit to decline to do so in favor of caterwauling about Citizens United rightfully upholding the basic principle of free speech. > > “Corporate personhood” is, of course, inherent in the entire purpose and definition of forming a corporation, has been a fact of corporation law since corporations have existed, and does not mean that “corporations are people.” In any case, neither the phrase nor the concept even appears in the CU decision at all. The notion that the case “established” a doctrine which in fact has been around for over a century and had absolutely nothing to do with the case was seized upon by comedians who found “corporations are people” an easy target of mockery, leading to widespread confusion over what Citizens United did. > > What Citizens United actually did was overturn a law saying that it is illegal to go on television and criticize Hillary Clinton. > > What this has to do with the news story is: Since this was a Supreme Court decision, it can only be overturned by another decision or by Constitutional amendment. Since it was a Supreme Court decision protecting the most basic civil liberty of the Bill of Rights, the right to speak freely about political leaders, any amendment overturning the decision must necessarily be a repeal of the First Amendment. Furthermore, no amendment would be required to simply pass a law regulating actual financial donations to candidates; only the “don’t criticize Hillary Clinton” law is at issue here. > > Hillary Clinton has announced her intention to raise 2.5 billion dollars to win the Presidency in 2016. Apparently that kind of “campaign finance” does not require “reform,” but the part where it’s legal to say you don’t plan on voting for her does. This is an extremely ominous attitude from a politician who has demonstrated authoritarian tendencies in the past, and it’s impossible for anyone claiming the good name of an ACLU liberal to support it. The issue here is quite simply – you want to ban people from engaging in political speech by defining speech as “money.” This the only area where obfuscation is taking place and it’s an affront to the core values of America. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/15 "2015-05-04T01:14:43Z")
> [@Haberdash](#): > > “Influence”…“purchase”…why won’t you acknowledge that what you are talking about is preventing people from engaging in political speech? That’s SUPPOSED to be an opportunity to “influence” others. I’m not talking about preventing political speech. That’s something you made up. I’m talking about preventing unlimited sums of money being spent on elections. If you can’t see the difference, there is little hope in debating with you. > [@](#): > > They want to help their preferred candidates buy commercials. That’s their right. The 2.5 billion dollars Hillary Clinton plans to raise will probably counter it, just as all the caterwauling about Mitt Romney “buying the election” resulted in Obama being re-elected. Money isn’t everything. But it does alter the chances. No amount of money would get a dunce like Ben Carson elected. But unlimited money would make his percentages a bit higher. Money shifts marginal cases. And over hundreds of cases, it can mean much more power than otherwise would accrue. > [@](#): > > The arrogance of the Democrats is only matched by their cowardice – are you really that afraid of people hearing other viewpoints that you have to tear up the First Amendment? Can’t your platform stand on its own merits? It’s not arrogant to want a level playing field. It’s not cowardice to want large corporations deciding our elections. It’s sanity. > [@](#): > > Then I am merely paying attention. To RW drivel, yes. > [@](#): > > Plusgood doublethink there. Again, you’re the one trotting out a hyperbolic and emotional bleat of, “censoring political speech” when exactly zero people would have their political speech censored by campaign finance reform. You’re the one who can’t stand on his own feet and has to hide behind bumper-sticker catechisms instead of reasoned debate. > [@](#): > > I’ll just paste in this explanation I provided in another thread: That’s feeble reasoning there. Hillary wants campaign finance reform. Asserting she should ignore the system as it is, until it’s enacted is bafflingly stupid. “Oh, if she wants campaign finance, why doesn’t she just turn away donors.” That’s not something a serious person suggests. > [@](#): > > The issue here is quite simply – you want to ban people from engaging in political speech by defining speech as “money.” No, you got it exactly backwards. You want to keep huge amounts of money in politics by defining it as speech. > [@](#): > > This the only area where obfuscation is taking place and it’s an affront to the core values of America. The core values of America aren’t that the rich should form a hereditary oligarchy. Your position is nonsense, and your ability to fight for it devolves to nothing more than demands that words mean things other than they do. ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/16 "2015-05-04T01:17:43Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > That’s feeble reasoning there. Hillary wants campaign finance reform. Asserting she should ignore the system as it is, until it’s enacted is bafflingly stupid. > > “Oh, if she wants campaign finance, why doesn’t she just turn away donors.” That’s not something a serious person suggests. Are you going to address the fact that the centerpiece of the “campaign finance reform” initiative is overturning Citizens United and re-instating a law against political speech, or the general disconnect between CFR and reality embodied in their complete misunderstanding of every bit of Citizens United? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 1:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/17 "2015-05-04T01:40:38Z")
Do you disagree with the proposition that increasing amounts of unregulated money in politics generally has a corrupting influence? Or to say it another way, just how much do you trust politicians of all political stripes? ---
**Author:** ![Haberdash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Haberdash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Haberdash)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/18 "2015-05-04T01:43:56Z")
I find it astoundingly naive to think that only people you already disagree with are corruptible. I find it implausible that an American populace which, according to you, consistently votes for corrupt, suicidal policies because they are easily manipulated by shiny things would produce better results under a different legal regime. And I find all of this irrelevant to the fact that speech is sacrosanct, and even if you could prove that the First Amendment was leading to the rise of Hitler, that still wouldn’t make it 1% less worth defending. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/19 "2015-05-04T01:50:57Z")
> [@](#): > > Are you going to address the fact that the centerpiece of the “campaign finance reform” initiative is overturning Citizens United… Yes, of course. It should be overturned, because it’s wrong. > [@](#): > > … and re-instating a law against political speech What law against political speech are you referring to? If the Koch brothers want to stand on the street corners and pass out flyers about their favorite candidates, they’re perfectly allowed to do so. They have the same rights to free speech as anyone else. Their money has nothing to do with their speech, however, and can and should be regulated. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [May 4, 2015, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156/20 "2015-05-04T01:56:17Z")
First of all, I didn’t say only politicians I disagree with are the corruptible ones. You’re just making shit up with that comment. No political viewpoint is immune from greed. Second of all, if you don’t think this country has a centuries-long challenge with politicians who honestly believed that blatant corruption was just the normal way of doing business, then you literally know nothing about past electoral systems. Go read John F. Kennedy’s “Profiles in Courage.” That book is about the greatest senators in American history, and nearly every one of them would have spent decades in prison if they were around today. Most of them make someone like Duke Cunningham or Jim Traficant (to name politicians in both major parties) look like shoplifters compared to the blatant bank robberies those politicians committed. And yet, the politicians in that book held office, generally speaking, for quite a long time. There are limits to freedom of speech. The right to yell fire does not extend to promoting a dangerous panic. The right to political speech ought not extend to promoting a direct connection between political fundraising and official favors. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-fec-throws-up-its-hands-and-surrenders/719156.md?page=2)