Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by CoolHand on Tuesday May 05 2015, @07:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the bureaucracy-at-its-finest dept.

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.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:13PM

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:13PM (#179242) Journal

    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.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:23PM

    by VLM (445) on Tuesday May 05 2015, @08:23PM (#179251)

    A jury trial, obviously. Make every decision a court case and let the chips fall.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:06AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:06AM (#179301)

    The Judiciary? They're not exactly non-political

    They can't (won't) even get rid of the slimy judges.
    The Constitution says

    The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their Offices during good behavior

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 06 2015, @12:24PM (#179468)

      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

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 06 2015, @03:42AM (#179374) Journal

    Putting the parties in a position of power over the activities of the parties seems ridiculous.

    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