HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » F.E.C. Canít Curb 2016 El...

Sat May 2, 2015, 08:34 PM

F.E.C. Canít Curb 2016 Election Abuse, Commission Chief Says

Source: NY Times

By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON ó The leader of the Federal Election Commission, the agency charged with regulating the way political money is raised and spent, says she has largely given up hope of reining in abuses in the 2016 presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.

ďThe likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,Ē Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. ďI never want to give up, but Iím not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. Itís worse than dysfunctional.Ē

Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the agencyís six commissioners. They are perpetually locked in 3-to-3 ties along party lines on key votes because of a fundamental disagreement over the mandate of the commission, which was created 40 years ago in response to the political corruption of Watergate.

Some commissioners are barely on speaking terms, cross-aisle negotiations are infrequent, and with no consensus on which rules to enforce, the caseload against violators has plummeted.

FULL story at link.



Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission, says the gridlocked agency cannot rein in financial abuses. Credit Kendrick Brinson for The New York Times

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/03/us/politics/fec-cant-curb-2016-election-abuse-commission-chief-says.html?partner=EXCITE&ei=5043

12 replies, 1875 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 12 replies Author Time Post
Reply F.E.C. Canít Curb 2016 Election Abuse, Commission Chief Says (Original post)
Omaha Steve May 2015 OP
turbinetree May 2015 #1
JDPriestly May 2015 #5
okaawhatever May 2015 #7
brooklynite May 2015 #9
former9thward May 2015 #10
pscot May 2015 #2
diabeticman May 2015 #3
BlueJazz May 2015 #4
calimary May 2015 #6
Gregorian May 2015 #8
malthaussen May 2015 #11
Hugin May 2015 #12

Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat May 2, 2015, 08:52 PM

1. This is

totally unacceptable.
After reading the NYT article it made my blood boil.

Money is not free speech its corruption of the free speech.

Watergate was a outright criminal enterprise set up buy the re-election committee for Richard Nixon and the slush fund that he used for the criminal enterprise.
And now the Commission to prevent this from happening, is hampered and has been basically been taken apart by the right wing U.S. Supreme Court, and the attacks on the IRS to back this political corruption, by republicans defunding that agency also.
I think its time for "citizens" to go to this hearing and other hearing to demand some answers, we are paying them to stop this nonsense

If anyone thinks that this election is not important, they are mistaken---------------its about Citizens United and the Republican Justice (lack of justice) of the John Roberts majority and the right wing U.S. Supreme Court.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to turbinetree (Reply #1)

Sat May 2, 2015, 10:22 PM

5. And that is one of the reasons that so many of us support Bernie Sanders.

A vote for Bernie is a vote for clean election funding and against the oligarchy's election funding.

That is a major and decisive difference between Hillary and Bernie.

Hillary takes money from the oligarchs and the big corporations. Bernie does not. Go to his website. Go to the donation page. He asks his donors to state that they are not corporations, not government contractors and are giving their own money. Does any other candidate do that? I think not.

If for no other reason, we should nominate Bernie Sanders in order to clean up our government -- at least the White House.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Sat May 2, 2015, 11:13 PM

7. Hillary Clinton supports campaign finance reform, even if it requires a Constitutional

Amendment. Yes, she takes money from Wall Street. They were, after all, her constituents. Let's see if Bernie keeps his promise to not take money from corps in the Presidential race.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #5)

Sun May 3, 2015, 12:00 AM

9. Hillary Clinton has pledged to appoint SC Justices to overturn CU

...You may think Sanders' positions are stronger, but if he doesn't win (in part because he likely won't have the funds to compete against the Republicans), CU will continue to be the law of the land.

By the way: were you referring to limitations like this?:

I am a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted permanent resident of the U.S.
I am making this contribution on a personal card with my own personal funds, not those of another person or entity.
I am not a federal contractor.


Straight from the Hillary Clinton website.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brooklynite (Reply #9)

Sun May 3, 2015, 12:58 AM

10. That is also from any Republican website.

It is lawyer boilerplate language.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat May 2, 2015, 09:17 PM

2. No wonder Stewart's quitting

The satire is built-in.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat May 2, 2015, 09:17 PM

3. B.S.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat May 2, 2015, 10:16 PM

4. I DO appreciate the straightforwardness of Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman.

 

She doesn't try to Mealy-mouth the situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat May 2, 2015, 10:30 PM

6. This is just pathetic.

Thank you government haters and "nobody tells ME what to do" assholes!

This is the kind of shit you get, then. One of these days, one of those regulations that can't get through - will be something YOU care about, and it won't get done.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sat May 2, 2015, 11:38 PM

8. There it is: I predict big money sees Bernie, and will simply pull out all of the stops.

They can't afford to play by humanitarian rules. And being the noncommercial candidate, Bernie Sanders just won't have access to the big corporate money.

David and Golliath. I hope.

Am I reading too much into this?

Edit- But...It's whom wins the election that counts. Not who received the most donations. It might not be all doom and gloom for the noncommercial candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sun May 3, 2015, 07:24 AM

11. I applaud your honesty, Commisioner...

... but in that case, what are we paying you for?

-- Mal

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Omaha Steve (Original post)

Sun May 3, 2015, 08:41 AM

12. Regulatory capture at it's worst.

But, 2016 will all be blamed on lazy Democrats not voting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread