Is Dems’ Objection to Von Spakovsky the Real Source of FEC Dysfunction?

In response to my earlier post, a reader offers a different and very interesting perspective:

You say on your blog that the “origins” of the current “dysfunction” trace to Don McGahn.  “Don McGahn” may serve as a convenient origin for those who disagree with the Republican Commissioners’ votes, but that view forgets the highly politicized events that led to (and caused) McGahn’s appointment.  A few years ago, you acknowledged that the left’s opposition to von Spakovsky might have been a mistake.  (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/01/the_fec_is_as_good_as_dead.html)
The challenge to the longstanding FEC nomination process directly resulted in the appointment of the McGahn-Hunter-Petersen slate.  Campaign finance reform insiders, voting rights activists, others on the left, objected to von Spakovsky’s confirmation, Democrats in the Senate went along with this, and a Commission consisting of Weintraub-Lenhard-Walther-Mason-von Spakovsky-[empty seat] wasn’t confirmed.  (Caroline Hunter was eventually nominated for the empty seat, previously held by Michael Toner.  McGahn was then nominated for Mason’s seat, and Petersen replaced von Spakovsky.  Bauerly replaced Lenhard on the Democrats’ side.)  The group that was broken up after the recess appointments expired never faced the sort of criticism that the FEC receives today.
There seems to be plenty of willingness to blame the Republicans for the current condition of the FEC, and a very short memory of how we actually got here.  A few individuals’ objections to von Spakovsky (some might call it a personal vendetta) ballooned into a series of personnel decisions that have had very real consequences.
The FEC has been different since 2008 – but there is more to it than just Don McGahn or any other single Commissioner.  A question that never gets asked is whether von Spakovsky’s opponents would make the same choices knowing what they know today.
Share this: