In response to this post on the deadlock on FEC appointments, Bob Bauer has written this post at his web site. Mr. Bauer’s points are always worthy of attention, and this one is no exception. I want to make two quick points in response, or perhaps better said, two clarifications.
First, Bob writes:
Smith suggests that Democrats, opposing the nomination of Hans von Spakovsky, are violating a tradition of respecting the other party’s choices for the FEC. They are doing this, Smith insists, because von Spakovsky is a vocal critic of the campaign finance laws, …
This is wrong, through and through, and so much so that it is hard to believe that Brad, normally wary of partisan pap, has written it. Brad must know that von Spakovsky’s opposition has nothing to do with the campaign finance laws, and everything to do with his prior employment with the Department of Justice. Occasionally, the argument against von Spakovsky brings up the FEC years, but largely to raise questions about his temperament or judgment and not to suggest that Republicans deeply skeptical of campaign finance regulation cannot serve at the FEC. And even if this is a view held by any of von Spakovsky’s adversaries, Smith knows well that it is not the prevailing view, and it is not the cause of von Spakovsky’s political troubles, or the FEC’s.
To be clear, my project here was largely to rebut efforts by Democracy 21 and others who do, in fact, seek to defeat the nomination because of von Spakovsky’s views on campaign finance. In this effort, these "reform" organizations have, I think, misrepresented the context and the practical effect of the current Senate dynamics and Majority Leader Reid’s proposals, counting on the fact that most reporters know little of FEC history. I wrote this post in response to a press release put out by the campaign finance "reform" organization Democracy 21, criticising Senator McConnell for the absence of a quorum at the FEC. What I wrote is, "Democracy 21 … desperately wants to keep von Spakovsky off the FEC because von Spakovsky does not share Fred Wertheimer’s extreme regulatory views…."
I am, as Bob suggests, well aware of the very different reasons why various Democratic politicians seek to scuttle von Spakovsky’s nomination. For Democrats, I wrote, "We won’t go into the reasons for Democratic opposition to Commissioner von Spakovsky here, " but I included this link to a piece discussing those reasons and my take on them. For the purpose of the post in question, the reasons for the opposition of Democratic Senators are relatively unimportant – my goal was to address was I believe was a misrepresentation by Democracy 21 about how the system has worked in the past. I can understand, however, why there might be some confusion as to whom I was referring at different points.
Meanwhile, Bob takes issue with my interpretation of tradition as well. I interpret the informal rule as one that brings nominees forward in pairs and makes it impossible for one party to block the other’s nominees to the FEC; Bob seems to agree but only within certain perameters of temperment, background, and "type." I would actually agree with that, too, I suppose, so any disagreement we would have seems to be over whether or not von Spakovsky falls within those acceptable parameters. Either way, I think Bob and I agree that that is the debate, not, as Democracy 21 tries to sell it, that the "normal" process is for individual up or down votes by the Senate on nominees, which would allow the majority party to block any nominee of the minority party.
Second and more seriously, Bob takes me to task for "insinuating" that Democrats might benefit from a the deadlock. Bob writes, "Smith has no evidence on which to rest a charge that Democrats expect to benefit from an incapacitated FEC."
I am sensitive to this charge of guilt by innuendo because it is a longstanding favorite tactic of organizations such as Democracy 21. And to some extent Bob’s point is fair. The point I was attempting to make, however, is once again pegged to the broader story self-styled reformers seek to present to the press, i.e. that it must be that Senator McConnell is blocking the nominees because, as Bob puts it here, "he has no use for the agency; now he can show that it is, more or less literally, useless: out of action, its immobility can be shown." But is Bob on any more solid ground in attributing this motive to Senator McConnell – has he talked to Senator McConnell about it? – than I am in thinking that some Democrats may not want a reconstituted FEC because, as I wrote, "If the deadlock lasts long enough, it could mean that the FEC will be unable to pay out funds for the General Election. This will give Senator Obama an excuse to renege on his pledge, made last year, to take the tax subsidy in the general election."?
I think the broader point, once again, is that there are immediate political interests on both sides, and politicians cannot be unaware of those interests. This is something Bob and I have long agreed on – politicians do not suddenly become angels merely because the issue is campaign finance. At the same time, it is a mistake to assume that everything our political leaders do is motivated by crass self-interest. On the immediate issue, this illustrates that the blame game, wherein Democracy 21 seeks to impugn one side, is one that both can play, and the press should be alert to that fact. Both sides potentially can gain from the impasse, and both sides can lose. Even the reform community can gain from the impasse, as Bob has previously noted in posts. So my point was, as is so often the case, Democracy 21’s efforts to portray this as a battle of light against darkness should not be taken too seriously.
On the bigger issue, it seems to me that once again campaign finance law seems to be creating, rather than resolving, appearances of ethical impropriety, where they probably do not exist; and it seems to be distracting from, rather than adding to, discussion of more substantive issues.
