|
|
| Line 86: |
Line 86: |
|
| |
|
| Between 1996 and 2006, the FEC tied in only 2.4% of Matters Under Review (MURs).<ref>Michael M. Franz, ''The Devil We Know? Evaluating the FEC as Enforcer'', 8 ELECTION L.J. 167, 176 (2009).</ref> In 2008 and 2009, such deadlocks spiked to 13% and to 24.4% in 2014.<ref>R. SAM GARRETT, CONG. RES. SERV., NO. R 40779, DEADLOCKED VOTES AMONG MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC): OVERVIEW AND POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONGRESS 5, 9-10, 12 (2009).</ref><ref>R. SAM GARRETT, CONG. RES. SERV., NO. R 44319, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND SELECTED ISSUES FOR CONGRESS 10 (2015).</ref> By 2016, commissioners deadlocked on more than 30% of substantive votes and consequently enforcement intensity decreased significantly.<ref>Eric Lichtblau, ''Democratic Member to Quit Election Commission, Setting Up Political Fight'', N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 19, 2017), www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-campaign-finance.html <nowiki>[https://perma.cc/2VMR-5A8C]</nowiki>.</ref><ref name=":1" /> | | Between 1996 and 2006, the FEC tied in only 2.4% of Matters Under Review (MURs).<ref>Michael M. Franz, ''The Devil We Know? Evaluating the FEC as Enforcer'', 8 ELECTION L.J. 167, 176 (2009).</ref> In 2008 and 2009, such deadlocks spiked to 13% and to 24.4% in 2014.<ref>R. SAM GARRETT, CONG. RES. SERV., NO. R 40779, DEADLOCKED VOTES AMONG MEMBERS OF THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION (FEC): OVERVIEW AND POTENTIAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR CONGRESS 5, 9-10, 12 (2009).</ref><ref>R. SAM GARRETT, CONG. RES. SERV., NO. R 44319, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION: ENFORCEMENT PROCESS AND SELECTED ISSUES FOR CONGRESS 10 (2015).</ref> By 2016, commissioners deadlocked on more than 30% of substantive votes and consequently enforcement intensity decreased significantly.<ref>Eric Lichtblau, ''Democratic Member to Quit Election Commission, Setting Up Political Fight'', N.Y. TIMES (Feb. 19, 2017), www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/us/politics/fec-elections-ann-ravel-campaign-finance.html <nowiki>[https://perma.cc/2VMR-5A8C]</nowiki>.</ref><ref name=":1" /> |
|
| |
| == Criticism ==
| |
| ===Campaign finance===
| |
| 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.
| |
|
| |
| While campaigning in the [[2018 United States House of Representatives elections in New York]], Democratic primary candidate Liuba Grechen Shirley used campaign funds to pay a caregiver for her two young children. The FEC ruled that federal candidates can use campaign funds to pay for childcare costs that result from time spent running for office. Grechen Shirley became the first woman in history to receive approval to spend campaign funds on childcare.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Carter |first=Christine Michel |title=Electing A Mother As VP? Vote Mama Resoundingly Says Yes |url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecarter/2020/08/08/electing-a-mother-as-vp-vote-mama-resoundingly-says-yes/ |access-date=2023-06-21 |website=Forbes |language=en |archive-date=June 21, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230621194653/https://www.forbes.com/sites/christinecarter/2020/08/08/electing-a-mother-as-vp-vote-mama-resoundingly-says-yes/ |url-status=live }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ===First Amendment issues===
| |
|
| |
| Critics including former FEC chairman [[Bradley Smith (law professor)|Bradley Smith]] and Stephen M. Hoersting, former executive director of the [[Institute for Free Speech|Center for Competitive Politics]], criticize the FEC for pursuing overly aggressive enforcement theories that they believe amount to an infringement on the [[First Amendment to the United States Constitution|First Amendment]] right to free speech.<ref>{{cite journal|author=Bradley A. Smith|author2=Stephen M. Hoersting|title=A Toothless Anaconda: Innovation, Impotence, and Overenforcement at the Federal Election Commission|journal=Election Law Journal|volume=1|issue=2|pages=145–171|year=2002|doi=10.1089/153312902753610002}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Division over the issue became especially prominent during the last several years of the Obama administration. Commissioners deadlocked on several votes over whether to regulate Twitter, Facebook, and other online mediums for political speech, as well as a vote to punish Fox News for the selection criteria it used in a presidential debate.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fec-democrats-tried-to-punish-fox-news-over-debate-changes-files-show|title=FEC Democrats tried to punish Fox News over debate changes, files show|newspaper=[[Fox News]]|first=Judson|last=Berger|date=June 30, 2016|access-date=April 26, 2017|archive-date=April 26, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170426152339/http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/30/fec-democrats-tried-to-punish-fox-news-over-debate-changes-files-show.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/regulators-spar-over-whether-unregulated-internet-harms-minorities/article/2603012|title=Regulators spar over whether unregulated Internet harms minorities|newspaper=[[Washington Examiner]]|first=Rudy|last=Takala|author-link=Rudy Takala|date=September 27, 2016|access-date=April 26, 2017|archive-date=December 22, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171222050914/http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/regulators-spar-over-whether-unregulated-internet-harms-minorities/article/2603012|url-status=live}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| ===Deadlocks===
| |
|
| |
| Critics of the commission also argue that the membership structure regularly causes deadlocks on 3-3 votes.<ref>[http://www.ombwatch.org/node/11215 CREW Sues the Federal Election Commission over Case Dismissals, OMB Watch, August 17, 2010] {{webarchive|url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120221220953/http%3A//www.ombwatch.org/node/11215 |date=February 21, 2012 }}</ref> Since 2008, 3-3 votes have become more common at the FEC. From 2008 to August 2014, the FEC has had over 200 tie votes, accounting for approximately 14 percent of all votes in enforcement matters.<ref name=NConfessore>{{cite news|last1=Confessore|first1=Nicholas|title=Election Panel Enacts Policies by Not Acting|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/us/politics/election-panel-enacts-policies-by-not-acting.html|access-date=August 26, 2014|newspaper=The New York Times|date=August 25, 2014|archive-date=November 12, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201112031937/http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/26/us/politics/election-panel-enacts-policies-by-not-acting.html|url-status=live}}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| On May 6, 2021, the FEC closed an inquiry into whether the [[Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal|payment to Stormy Daniels by Donald Trump]] violated campaign financial law during the 2016 election. The FEC voted 2-2, between Democrats and Republicans, against a motion to take further action.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57029342 |title=Stormy Daniels: US election officials drop Trump hush money probe |access-date=May 8, 2021 |archive-date=May 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210508061715/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57029342 |url-status=live }}</ref> Republican Vice Chairman Allen Dickerson recused himself, while independent Commissioner Steven Walther did not vote.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552398-michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-blast-fec-for-dropping-trump-probe |title=Michael Cohen, Stormy Daniels blast FEC for dropping Trump probe |access-date=May 8, 2021 |archive-date=May 8, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210508065045/https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/552398-michael-cohen-stormy-daniels-blast-fec-for-dropping-trump-probe |url-status=live }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| Similarly, in June 2021, the FEC found that ''[[National Enquirer]]'' violated US election laws and $150,000 paid by AMI to [[Karen McDougal]] amounted to an illegal campaign contribution. Publisher AMI agreed to a fine of $187,500. However, the FEC divided 3-3 on party lines on a motion to pursue further investigation into Donald Trump, thus closing the investigation.<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57335148 |title=Karen McDougal: Trump escapes fine in Playboy model payment case |access-date=June 2, 2021 |archive-date=June 5, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210605021710/https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57335148 |url-status=live }}</ref>
| |
|
| |
| In June 2023, the FEC deadlocked over requests to create guidelines for campaign advertisements which use content generated by artificial intelligence. The vote failed 3-3 with all Republican commissioners voting against the request and all Democratic commissioners voting in favor, with Republican commissioner Allen Dickerson arguing that the agency did not have the authority to regulate such advertisements."<ref>[https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4103576-how-an-fec-deadlock-is-deterring-a-push-to-regulate-ai-in-campaigns/ How an FEC deadlock is deterring a push to regulate AI in campaigns] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926173422/https://thehill.com/policy/technology/4103576-how-an-fec-deadlock-is-deterring-a-push-to-regulate-ai-in-campaigns/ |date=September 26, 2023 }}.</ref>
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Commissioners== | | ==Commissioners== |