Federal Election Commission: Difference between revisions

Critics of the FEC, including many former commissioners<ref>Note, ''Eliminating the FEC: The Best Hope for Campaign Finance Regulation?'' 131 Harv. L. Rev. 1421 (2018).</ref> and [[Campaign finance reform in the United States|campaign finance reform]] supporters, have harshly complained of the FEC's impotence, and accused it of succumbing to [[regulatory capture]] where it serves the interests of the ones it was intended to regulate.<ref>''See, e.g.'', Editorial, ''The Feckless F.E.C., Rebuked'', N.Y. TIMES (Sept. 23, 2016), [https://nyti.ms/2pxe862]{{subscription required}} {{Cite web |title=Archived copy |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/opinion/the-feckless-fec-rebuked.html?smid=pl-share |url-status=bot: unknown |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240104115219/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/opinion/the-feckless-fec-rebuked.html?smid=pl-share |archive-date=January 4, 2024 |access-date=January 4, 2024 |website=[[The New York Times]]}} ("[M]ost campaign professionals treat the F.E.C. as an impotent joke . . . .")</ref> The FEC's bipartisan structure, which was established by Congress, renders the agency "toothless."  Critics also claim that most FEC penalties for violating [[election law]] come well after the actual election in which they were committed. Additionally, some critics claim that the commissioners tend to act as an arm of the "regulated community" of parties, interest groups, and politicians when issuing rulings and writing regulations. Others point out, however, that the commissioners rarely divide evenly along partisan lines, and that the response time problem may be endemic to the enforcement procedures established by Congress. To complete steps necessary to resolve a complaint – including time for defendants to respond to the complaint, time to investigate and engage in legal analysis, and finally, where warranted, prosecution – necessarily takes far longer than the comparatively brief period of a political campaign.