Fred Wertheimer Clarifies

A statement about his statement:

Democracy 21 did not say that Senator John McCain cannot withdraw from the presidential primary public financing system until the Federal Election Commission makes a decision in this case.

We said that the shut down of the FEC has “taken center stage” because there is no agency to make a legal determination of whether McCain can or cannot withdraw from the public financing system. That means that their will be no resolution of the legal question involved here until the agency is re-constituted to decide the legal issue, and if such an FEC decision is appealed, the case is decided by the courts.

The importance of the legal question, and the need for it to be resolved quickly, is what has shed light on the deadlock in the Senate over the confirmation of four pending nominees to serve as FEC commissioners – a deadlock caused by Senator Mitch McConnell’s refusal to allow a simple up-or-down vote on each of the four pending nominees.

Democracy 21 did not take a position on whether McCain can or cannot legally withdraw from the system. That question, we said, raises “novel and complex” issues of both campaign finance and commercial banking law that will need to be decided by the FEC and potentially by the courts.

Comments

I'd be interested to know whether the FEC can even issue the matching funds check at this point in the game. If so, the Dems decision to block confirmation of the FEC appointees makes sense. Obama will argue he isn't breaking his promise to accept matching funds because he can't accept any without the FEC in place.

Posted by X | February 28, 2008 1:25 PM

If so, the Dems decision to block confirmation of the FEC appointees...

As I just pointed out on another thread, this is not accurate. It's the Republicans that are blocking the confirmation votes.

The Repubs want 4 nominations all voted on together as a block. This is because one of the nominees, Hans von Spakovsky, was involved in election shenanigans and doesn't stand a chance of being nominated on his own merits. Harry Reid offered 4 votes, one for each nominee. (Gee! What a revolutionary concept!) Mitch McConnell said no, it has to be a vote on the whole block of 4. This way they can try to get one unacceptable nominee to ride in on the coattails of 3 acceptable nominees.

So the FEC is non-functional because the Repubs refuse to allow an up or down vote on each of the nominees. How quickly they change their stripes when they are in the minority.

Posted by LFC | February 28, 2008 2:19 PM

No LFC, it is the Dems that are blocking. It is and always has been standard practice for each party to choose its own nominees.

Harry Reid is trying to change the rules of the game and McConnell won't allow it.

If the Dems want to change the rules and block Spakovsky then the Repubs have every right to counter that.

Posted by Jesse | February 28, 2008 2:31 PM

I don't know anything about Democracy 21 or Fred Wertheimer other than what I've read in these posts, but they're looking increasingly foolish with each so-called clarification.

Besides, clearly this is an issue to be decided by the FEC and the courts, but doesn't a campaign finance reform advocacy group (which is what D21 is, I believe) have anything to say in the meantime?

Posted by Jeff Larson | February 28, 2008 2:32 PM

LFC -

The FEC has traditionally been bipartisan, with the panel split evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Reid wants to have the Democrat nominees, while blocking the Republican vote, giving the Dems a majority for the rest of 2008.

Of course McConnell is blocking this blatant power grab attempt. Do you think he's some kind of idiot?

Posted by x | February 28, 2008 2:33 PM

X: Treasury actually cuts the checks, and next month, they will be about to send McCain the $5.8M certified for him. It's just that without a functioning FEC, they can't certify *additional* amounts.

And since when did something being "novel" or "complex" render Wertheimer incapable of rendering an opinion?

Posted by Adam B | February 28, 2008 2:41 PM

Jesse & X-

Please provide some more information on where I am wrong, and please show me some evidence that the Dems are "blocking" and making a "power grab attempt". (No Limbaugh quotes, please.) But first, you might want to review the Democracy 21 release just quoted by Marc a few posts ago:

On December 19, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) proposed that the Senate have up-or-down majority votes on each of the four pending FEC nominees.

In so doing, Senator Reid offered Senator McConnell and the Senate Republicans the normal majority vote process for confirmation votes. He also showed that he had eliminated on the Democratic side the holds on voting on Von Spakovsky's nomination and any demands for 60 votes to confirm him.

But a majority up-or-down vote on Von Spakovsky was not enough for Senator McConnell. Apparently concerned that a majority of the Senate was not prepared to vote for Von Spakovsky, McConnell rejected the vote on Von Spakovsky and blocked the Senate from voting on the other three FEC nominees as well.

The January 2, 2008 press release further stated:

As Senator Reid stated on the Senate floor on December 19, "facing possible defeat for their own nominee, the Republicans would prefer to hold the remaining 3 unobjectionable nominees hostage and render the FEC unable to function in the next election."

Senator McConnell's position is that all four nominees must be confirmed together or else none will be confirmed.

"In rejecting a straight up-or-down vote on FEC nominee von Spakovsky, Senator McConnell is holding the other three FEC nominees and the country hostage at the direct expense of the integrity of our political system," Wertheimer stated.

"Senator McConnell wants Von Spakovsky carried to the FEC on the backs of the other three nominees, without having to bother with a Senate vote that Von Spakovsky might lose," Wertheimer said.

"The legal issues surrounding the McCain loans could not make clearer that it is essential for the FEC to be reconstituted immediately," Wertheimer stated.

"Senator McConnell must stop blocking up-or-down majority votes on each of the four pending FEC nominees or President Bush must withdraw the nomination of Hans Von Spakovsky in order for the process of reconstituting the FEC to move forward quickly," Wertheimer stated.

"All who are interested in resolving the legal issues in the McCain matter should join in calling for immediate action to reconstitute the FEC," Wertheimer said.

Is this in error? If so, specifically how?

Posted by LFC | February 28, 2008 2:46 PM

Reid wants to confirm the Democrat nominees, while blocking the GOP nominee. This is supposed to be a bipartisan panel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Election_Commission

The Commission is made up of six members, who are appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate. Each member serves a six-year term, and two seats are subject to appointment every two years. By law, no more than three Commissioners can be members of the same political party, and at least four votes are required for any official Commission action. This structure was created to encourage nonpartisan decisions and, some claim, to discourage rulings which would be harmful to both major parties.

The Chairmanship of the Commission rotates among the members each year, with no member serving as Chairman more than once during his or her term. As of January, 2008, four of the six Commission seats were vacant, as the Senate failed to vote on full terms for recess appointees and nominees Hans von Spakovsky (Republican), Robert Lenhard and Steven Walther (Democrats) to the Commission. This Senate failure was due to partisan fighting over the nomination of von Spakovsky, who had served on a recess appointment from January of 2006 through December of 2007. Additionally, no Republican has been nominated to replace Michael Toner, who resigned in March of 2007. Thus the current composition of the FEC includes Republican commissioner David Mason (Chairman) and Democratic commissioner Ellen Weintraub (Vice Chair). Both Commissioners Mason and Weintraub are serving past the end of their terms because successors has not yet been named, so that as of January 2008 none of the six Commission seats was filled by a duly nominated and Senate-confirmed Commissioner.

Posted by x | February 28, 2008 2:52 PM

Three little words could do so much.

- Writ of Mandamus.

Posted by AHayward | February 28, 2008 2:56 PM

Pathetic and sad comment by Wertheimer. These organizations have lost all clout and credibility. Howard Dean's campaign opened the way to the democratization of campaigns, small contributors through the internet. Obama's base of one million small contributors and growing is clear demonstration that campaign finance can be democratic and entrepeneurial through the internet donation process.

Posted by Bill R. | February 28, 2008 3:32 PM

X-

The answer to your question (about Mitch McConnell, idiot) is a resounding YES!

Regards.

Posted by Tumblina | February 29, 2008 2:12 AM