The leader of the US 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 US presidential campaign, which could generate a record $10 billion in spending.
“The likelihood of the laws being enforced is slim,” Ann M. Ravel, the chairwoman, said in an interview. “I never want to give up, but I’m not under any illusions. People think the F.E.C. is dysfunctional. It’s worse than dysfunctional.”
Her unusually frank assessment reflects a worsening stalemate among the agency’s 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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:43PM
Fire each and every one of them. It is beyond shameful that they would accept that the laws governing the foundation of democracy - fair elections - cannot and will not be inforced.
(Score: 2) by SubiculumHammer on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:47PM
The commission is required to have an even number of seats. It is held by 3 Republicans, and 3 Democrats. Every vote is a tie. Nothing gets done.
Dian Rehm show ust did a show on it:
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2015-05-05/partisan-paralysis-at-the-federal-election-commission-and-what-can-be-done-about-it [thedianerehmshow.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:04PM
How about 2 Republicans, 2 Democrats, and 2 Independents, Libertarians, Pastafarians, etc? As long as there is an even number of seats, the Rs & Ds have the same number of seats, and no other party has more seats than the Ds or Rs, they should all be equally unhappy. And isn't everyone being unhappy a good measure of fairness?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:09PM
Pastafarian is a religion, not a political group. I'm not against pastarians serving, just wanted to make that distinction.
(Score: 3, Funny) by c0lo on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:39AM
Yeap, me too. I'll have another serve of pasta with meat-balls anytime.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:13PM
Putting the parties in a position of power over the activities of the parties seems ridiculous. But realistically, who else could there possibly be to do that job such that there wouldn't be the same problems.
The Judiciary? They're not exactly non-political, but they are pretty much untouchable once confirmed.
Maybe we have found a use for the NSA after all....
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:23PM
A jury trial, obviously. Make every decision a court case and let the chips fall.
(Score: 2) by wisnoskij on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:41PM
And will the jury be made up of 6 democrats and 6 republicans?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday May 06 2015, @11:09AM
Hard core blind party supporters? probably statistically unlikely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:06AM
The Judiciary? They're not exactly non-political
They can't (won't) even get rid of the slimy judges.
The Constitution says
So, there's a federal judge who beat his wife. [google.com]
A slap on the wrist for him (basically attend some AA-type meetings) and he's back on the bench.
This is the same (Republican) judge who sent the former (Democrat) Governor of Alabama to prison for something that has never been considered a crime by any prosecutor.
(Over 100 former state AGs have said the Don Siegelman case is an example of judicial abuse.)
Good luck straightening out that snake pit.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:24PM
Well, if he only beat his wife outside office hours, then there should be no conflict with constitution, right? :-)
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:42AM
Not that ridiculous considering they have opposing interests.
Anyway, less ridiculous than expecting banksters to... um.. what do they call it?... ah, yes, "self-regulate".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:36AM
We know that the last carriage of the train shakes the most. Therefore, for your comfort, we've decide to eliminate the last carriage.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford