CCP President David Keating recently noted that opponents of free speech in campaigns have corrupted the term “corruption.” It’s not alone. They also have trouble with “partisan.”
The office of Congressman John Sarbanes put out a press release last week hyping House Democrats’ proposals to expand campaign finance and voting rights laws. The release says, in part, “The rise of ’secret money’ and unlimited outside spending by unaccountable Super PACs is eroding the public’s trust in our elections. Meanwhile, the Federal Election Commission – the agency in charge of upholding the laws that govern our elections – is hobbled by its partisan composition.” (Bolding mine.)
This is an astonishing bit of doublespeak. The FEC is, of course, comprised of six members, three Democrats and three Republicans. Its structure is purposely bipartisan, designed in response to the corrupt abuse of campaign finance laws by Richard Nixon’s Justice Department against the President’s critics and political opponents.
What the press release really means to say is, “the FEC is hobbled by its bipartisan composition.” That is, advocates of tighter control of speech are frustrated that the Commission’s structure forces them to convince both Democrats and Republicans that their proposals are worthwhile and constitutional.
While House Democrats’ “Stronger America” plan focuses on overturning Citizens United and passing the DISCLOSE Act rather than reforming the structure of the FEC, advocates of stricter regulation of political speech have long aimed to transform the agency into a 5-member body in hopes that it would act more aggressively. It very likely would – although the amount of gridlock at the FEC is already less than you might expect – but the FEC’s bipartisan composition is what gives its actions legitimacy. If the agency were in the pocket of one party or perceived to be, it would likely meet much more resistance from the public and the regulated community.
Setting aside arguments for why the FEC must remain bipartisan, the real story here is that “reformers” are willing to say up is down when it suits their end goal. Opposing a bipartisan agency looks bad for obvious reasons, so Sarbanes’ office calls it partisan in direct contradiction to reality. No wonder the debate over campaign finance regulation is so unproductive – we’re speaking different languages.
