As Ellen wrote previously here, former Bush administration Justice Department official Hans Von Spakovsky's nomination to the Federal Election Commission was highly controversial due to concerns about stands he took on voting rights while in the Justice Department. These concerns led some Democrats to block his nomination. The President and congressional Republicans refused to hold a vote on any other commissioners without support for Von Spakosky, effectively freezing the Commission. The Commission is currently short on commissioners and is unable to issue rulings on a variety of issues including the filing of disclosure reports for bundled contributions from lobbyists. Moments ago, Von Spakovsky pulled his name from nomination all but clearing the way to a fully operational Federal Election Commission. His letter to President Bush is below the fold:
We've written fairly often about unbelievable situation over the Federal Election Commission. Always regarded as a toothless watchdog even in the best of days, since there's been a partisan stalemate over new appointments, it's been totally neutered.
Now, Paul Kiel reports that the Bush Administration has offered a so-called compromise. The most controverisal nominee -- Spakovsky -- remains a nominee, and an administration spokesperson told the The New York Times that they would accept a separate vote on him. In the meantime, the administration has submitted a new nominee to replace FEC Chair David Mason, one of the two setting commissioners.
Yesterday’s decision by the Federal Election Commission to hold the line on spending rules for interest groups – essentially a vote not to open a new loophole allowing the kinds of unrestricted ad budgets we’ve seen in the past – was revealing in a couple of different ways.
First I should define the word “decision” in this case. Like so many FEC rulings, it was really a non-decision – the result of a 3-3 split between Democrats and Republicans on the six-member commission.
I began this day with an IM conversation with Larry Makinson about trying to get our hands on the most recently campaign contribution reports for the Lieberman-Lamont race. It dawned on us that the records could be pretty interesting. My thought had been to simply to direct our readers to the reports that were on line and let them search around. I guess we should have known it wouldn't be that easy. Our dialogue is instructive. Imagine if two novices were trying to find this information.
Ellen (9:00:14 AM): Got a blog idea for you this morning!
Today the FEC announced that it is fining Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) $11,000 for failing to properly report a $1.44 million loan that he took out for his 2000 re-election campaign.
In June 2000, Senator Frist took $1 million of the money that had been contributed to his 2000 Senate campaign and invested it in the stock market, where it promptly began losing money. In November 2000, Senator Frist sought to collect $1.2 million he had lent his 1994 Senate campaign committee. As a result of the stock market losses, however, Frist 2000, Inc. did not have enough money to repay the loan. Senator Frist solved this problem by having the 1994 and the 2000 campaign committees jointly take out a $1.44 million bank loan at a cost of $10,000 a month interest. Frist 2000, Inc. did not report this debt on its FEC disclosure forms.