Sarah Palin Turns Pro

.....

Paul Begala
July 3, 2009 - Huffington Post

.....

I wish Hunter S. Thompson had lived to see this.

As Hunter said, "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." Sarah Palin makes Mark Foley, the congressman who sent filthy emails to pages look almost normal. She makes David Vitter, the senator who was hanging out with hookers, look almost boring. She makes Larry Craig, caught hitting on a cop in a men's room, look almost stable. She makes John Ensign, the senator who was having an affair with a staffer, look almost humdrum (and compared to the rest of the GOP whack-jobs, he is). And she makes Mark Sanford, the governor with the Latin lover, look positively predictable.

It was an almost impossible mission, but in resigning from office with 17 months to go in her first term, Sarah Palin has made herself the bull goose loony of the GOP.

Let's stipulate that if there is some heretofore unknown personal, medical or family crisis, this was the right move. But Gov. Palin didn't say anything like that. Her statement was incoherent, bizarre and juvenile. The text, as posted on Gov. Palin's official website (here), uses 2,549 words and 18 exclamation points. Lincoln freed the slaves with 719 words and nary an exclamation; Mr. Jefferson declared our independence in 1,322 words and, again, no exclamation points. Nixon resigned the presidency in 1,796 words -- still no exclamation points. Gov. Palin capitalized words at random - whole words, like "TO," "HELP," and "AND," and the first letter of "Troops."

Gov. Palin's official announcement that she is resigning as chief executive of the great state of Alaska had all the depth and gravitas of a 13-year-old's review of the Jonas Brothers' album on Facebook. She even quoted her parents' refrigerator magnet. (Note to self: if one of my kids becomes governor, throw away the refrigerator magnet that says: "Murray's Oyster Bar: We Shuck Em, You Suck Em!") She put her son's name in quotations marks. Why? Who knows. She writes, "I promised efficiencies and effectiveness!?" Was she exclaiming or questioning? I get it: both! And I don't even know what to make of a sentence that reads:

*((Gotta put First Things First))*

Ponder the fact that Rupert Murdoch's Harper Collins publishing house is paying this, umm, writer $11 million for a book. Ponder that and say a prayer for Ms. Palin's editor.

I'm no latter-day Strunk & White, just a guy who was struck by Palin's spectacularly rambling and infantile prose. It bespeaks a rambling and infantile mind. But perhaps not. Perhaps this is all a ruse. Perhaps Gov. Palin wants us to believe she's an intellectual featherweight who is slightly shallower than an actor on High School Musical. Maybe she's trying to throw us off the trail.

Naah. A lot of people thought that about George W. Bush. He couldn't be so block-headed, they said. He couldn't be as childish and churlish as he came off. Oh yes he could. And so, too, might Ms. Palin be as vapid and puerile as her inane statement suggests.

We will know. In the fullness of time (and I predict, not much time) we will know. Again and again in her statement, Gov. Palin returned to the nettlesome ethics inquiries that have been visited upon her since she signed on to be John McCain's running mate. No doubt they are annoying. But does anyone believe that's why she's resigning? No, there's more to this story. And Ms. Palin's resignation only increases the chances that we will all know the rest of the story soon. Or, as she might put it:

We will all KNOW the "rest of the Story" *((SOON!))*

.....

Paul Begala is a political commentator providing insight "from the left" on CNN's programs including Inside Politics. Begala was formerly co-host of Crossfire, CNN's political debate program. Serving in the Clinton administration as counselor to the president, he helped define and defend the administration's agenda and served as the principal public spokesman.

Letter to Obama from a Dying Man

.....

With an Introduction by Paul Rogat Loeb

Robert Gordon
July 3, 2009 - CommonDreams.org

.....

My friend Robert Ellis Gordon is dying of lupus, with months left to live. He's spent more than a decade teaching writing to prison inmates, written a terrific book called The Fun House Mirror from those experiences and crafted a rave-reviewed novel, When Bobby Kennedy was a Moving Man, on Kennedy being sent back to earth to determine whether he deserved Heaven or Hell.

I often quote something Robert said to a group of fellow prison teachers, which seems an apt metaphor for any effort at change: "Some of the people we work with will already have redeemed their lives. Others, no matter what we do, will be back in here again. And for some, our efforts will make all the difference. We will never know which group is which, but that should not serve as a deterrent to our efforts."

Robert just wrote this open letter to Obama, challenging him to reach for his deepest levels of courage in being honest about what we face after decades of pillaging our economy. I'll miss his wise voice.

-Paul Rogat Loeb

Dear Mr. President:

I am one, among millions, who recently received an email regarding your health care plan. Mr. Plouffe's email requested personal stories.

As a fifty-five year old man who has lived with a rare and serious illness since 1989, and who was recently referred to hospice, I am, I suppose, no less qualified than others to write about the challenges and unlooked-for blessings that accompany a fatal disease.

Upon reflection, however, I realized my story would be less compelling than others. For I come from a generous family. True, we were raised to make our way in the world and I started to work at age fourteen. Some forty years later, however, when it became evident that I could no longer hold down a job, my family cut back on their expenses so that my basic needs would be met. Hence I will not die, as thousands of my counterparts do, alone and anonymous in a hospital room or in the streets.

So? I deleted Mr. Plouffe's email and returned to the task at hand. But deleted or not I was distracted by the email, so much so that I left the computer and took my dog for a walk. At the park, as I tossed the squeaky ball to Rose, I asked myself a question: if given the opportunity to write a letter to the President -- a letter in which illness and impending death served a larger agenda-- what would I say to him?

The answer was immediate and impassioned: "Please level with the people. Now."

What do I mean by level? And why this sense of urgency?

The urgency stems from the peril I see in an unbalanced presentation of your economic scenario. I do not mean to suggest that you speak only of the most dire predictions. We need a substantive message of hope. It's been a long forty years since we heard one. But authentic hope, as you know better than most, is founded upon truth. You had the courage to speak it throughout your campaign, and the magnitude of your victory revealed a public yearning to hear it.

In order to sustain the trust of the people, it is imperative that you continue to feed this yearning. That you do as you did in your speech on race: speak to us as adults. Speak even more deeply from the heart as well as the head. Above all, speak in the spirit of Judge Learned Hand: "The spirit of liberty is the spirit of not being too sure.

So even as you speak words of hope and quell our fears with your steady presence, let us know that you proceed in the spirit of not being too sure because you cannot be; because no one can be; because a global economic meltdown is unprecedented in scope and nature.

Tell the people, as FDR did, in a style that is true to yourself, that there's no panacea for this catastrophe. A catastrophe that was decades in the making and is not yet fully understood. And that your approach, therefore, must be a flexible one that allows for a sliding scale of eventualities, among which is the possibility-remote or not-- that this economic Katrina may outrace your best efforts to both remedy the cause and mitigate the effects.

What is to be gained by leveling with the people now? And what are the consequences if you do not do so?

Your most precious resource, Mr. President, is neither your brilliance nor the elegance with which you wield the language. Your most precious resource is your credibility.

The consequences of an unbalanced presentation, one that tilts too heavily toward the rosy?

No adverse consequences if that scenario unfolds.

But if worse continues to lead to worse as numerous economists predict, and you deny yourself political cover by not allowing for that eventuality?

Your popularity will prove thin and short-lived. You will lose your credibility. Quickly. And once relinquished, it can't be restored.

Should you lose your credibility the people will, at the least, dismiss you as yet another president in a long line of presidents who opted to not be statesmen. As for your ability to summon our better angels? That remarkable gift will be squandered.

And that's the best case scenario, Mr. President.

The worst?

If , in the absence of a credible President, tens of millions-millions who are ill-prepared for adversity-find themselves living in a state of deprivation and want? And if fear of the unknown starts feeding upon itself?

The people may, as they have in the past, turn to a leader who uses the energy of ignorance and fear to summon our darkest impulses. We don't have to travel back to the Trail of Tears to recognize our capacity for looking the other way while our government pursues a policy of genocide.

We don't have to travel back to the torture and murder of Emmett Till to recognize our capacity for denying the humanity of a child.

Joe McCarthy's sheet of paper?

Ancient history.

A mere nine months ago John McCain chose a running mate who proved masterful at inciting fear and hatred of "the other." And if worse continues to lead to worse in the absence of a credible president, the hatred we saw on the periphery of her crowds could move to the center and burst into flames that consume our better angels as they fan out.

On June 2nd the headline for the New York Times lead story ran beneath this headline: "Obama Is Upbeat For G.M. Future On A Day Of Pain."

Upbeat on a day when the lives of 21,000 autoworkers and their families were shattered.

Upbeat on a day in which the closing of seven plants will translate into tens of thousands of shattered lives in other sectors of the auto industry.

Upbeat on a day when the Times ran an editorial devoted to yet a new wave of home foreclosures.

There's a dissonance here, Mr. President. And even from the standpoint of political calculation- of the coldest Machiavellian calculation-this dissonance does not have to be. Last November the people rejected the politics of fear, rigidity, half-truths and lies, and embraced the politics of unity and truth. This was a tribute to our ability to discern and to the authentic nature of your message. A message of hope to be sure, but one that calls not for ease but sacrifice. And perhaps above all we came to appreciate a creative and compassionate vision that is tempered, at long last, by reality. Your vision represents the best and perhaps last hope for our children and for theirs.

You forged a bond with the people, Mr. President. But the glue hasn't set and the glue will not set if you do not re-calibrate your message.

The last and most important question: what is to be gained by leveling?

Perhaps the best way for me to address the positive, the potential for realizing your vision, is to circle back to Mr. Plouffe's request, and speak to you in personal terms about the lessons of illness and impending death.

You may be familiar with this quote from the poet, Sylvia Plath. "If only you could see me forge my soul, fighting and fighting to forge my soul."

Sylvia Plath succumbed to her despair, committed suicide in 1963. But her words still stand, maybe now more than ever, as tens of millions face the potential, at least, of entering the forging fire. And should that come to pass the people will look to you, just as the British looked to Churchill, for guidance, solace, and above all hope in the midst of their despair.

And where does my twenty-year dance with the fire fit into all of this? Where do you and I intersect? What have I learned that could possibly be of use to the President of the United States? What have I learned that might help this good man forge the soul of a nation?

Maybe something. Maybe nothing. But for what it's worth I offer a glimpse of my journey and a couple of nuggets I've picked up along the way.

The first nugget?

That we forge our souls not for ourselves but in order to be better disciples of compassion.

And how does an obscure writer and former prison teacher make a contribution this late in the day with a timeline, in all likelihood, of months?

Below, an excerpt from a recent note to the doctor who saved my life on numerous occasions over the past two decades.

... Suffering may teach but it is not an end in and of itself. And when the pain abates, during windows of peace, I write.

I have a book to complete before I die. It is different from the others. I want to leave something behind that may serve as a source of solace to a reader here or there; a reader who wrestles with despair during this era of incomprehensible suffering.

All those high-risk infusions? The fatal infection you warn me about? And my choice to continue, to run the risk, in order to buy time to write?

Like any man I fear a painful death. But after receiving Extreme Unction on multiple occasions, I no longer fear death itself. What I fear is a life not well-lived. And the best way for me to do so during the time that remains is to complete that manuscript.

It's just my body (not my soul) that is weary...

So that is my final task: to forge my soul on the page. I may die before I finish. Or I may risk all on the page and find that my skill is wanting; that the story implodes on itself. But if I fail in this task, I will do so in obscurity.

Because you sit where you sit, you don't have that luxury.

What you do have is the opportunity and responsibility to explain how we got here and enumerate the full panoply of outcomes.

If the rosy scenario comes to pass? The people will know, by dint of your honesty, that you are neither above nor below but of them.

And if worse continues to lead to worse? If tens of millions find themselves living at the extremes of deprivation and want? And you've retained your credibility?

The dreams you've resurrected may still be realized. Realized in ways and to a degree that would be unlikely during less uncertain times.

You'll be able to protect us, protect the children, from those who would prey upon fear and unleash violent thought, language and deed.

And as this economic Katrina continues to strengthen? As the people become increasingly aware that economic security is not a birthright? And are overwhelmed by a sense of vulnerability?

As the people walk through the fire together, the differences so artfully exploited by your predecessor will assume their proper perspective. And compassion may well fill the void. Shared adversity has a way of doing that.

And after the worst has passed, Mr. President? And the people, having been tempered by the fire, emerge stronger and more compassionate? Emerge with a visceral understanding of what it means to be dispossessed?

That, Mr. President, is when your vision may be realized. For the people who revealed a desire to serve at the outset of your candidacy, during times of relative prosperity, will still be here when the fire is extinguished. But the people will not be the same. They'll be more able and willing to answer your call. And their progeny will learn through their example.

This is not to say that the fire is pleasant. At times it's excruciating. I know that well. At times I want nothing more than to escape, and it is only faith that sustains me. Faith in God, yes, but also in man. Indeed, as I approach the River's edge, the distinction between divinity without and divinity within seems merely to be one of choice. And a simple choice at that: towards violence or towards compassion.

This is your hour, Mr. President.

I, like you, am both a child of God and a member of the body politic. And as I ready myself to leave this bittersweet world, I want you to know that it affords me much peace to know that you are the President. A President who quietly rescued the Constitution. Who can forge the nation's soul if the need arises. And who re-ignited the flame of hope and compassion months before the general election. A flame that was muted but not extinguished some forty years ago.

And this speaks to the most important lesson I've learned from my twenty-year dance with the fire. Certainly all people wish and deserve to be treated with dignity and compassion. But the human heart is bigger than that. We wish, as well, to experience our magnanimous natures, the divinity within. This is what Gandhi knew and tapped into. This is what my favorite saint knew: "It is in the giving that we receive." And this, Mr. President, is what you know.

So. A dying man's prayer for you and the nation: that the light that burns so brightly in you and your family will extend through generations. And if the children of the children choose to be their brothers and sisters' keepers simply because they listen to their hearts; hearts that tell them they're here to improve the lot of others?

Well, they may never know it was you who reminded their forbears of who they truly are. They may never even know your name.

But what of it?

If the words you spoke on election night come to fruition, they will not bring an end to suffering. But they will bring forth the better angels of which you speak; of which the last great candidate for president spoke.

And when I hear you summon our better angels forth, I hear echoes of the poet Robert Kennedy quoted on the darkest night of his brief campaign. And what greater legacy could he ask of you, and you, in turn, ask of us, than a renewed commitment to the age-old call to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world?

Sincerely,

Robert Ellis Gordon
Seattle, Washington

.....

Robert Gordon is the author of When Bobby Kennedy Was a Moving Man and The Funhouse Mirror: Reflections on Prison. He's written for Esquire, the Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe, Ploughshares, and the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and taught writing in Washington State prisons, juvenile institutions and inner-city high schools. He wrote Funhouse Mirror while undergoing chemotherapy, collaborating with six of his incarcerated students to let their voices be heard. The book won the 2000 Washington State Book Award. As one critic wrote of Bobby Kennedy, "Gordon's vision is at once radical and healing. It teaches us a little about Heaven and a lot about Hell."

Palin resignation splits GOP

.....

Jonathan Martin
July 04, 2009 - Politico.com

.....

Sarah Palin's jaw-dropping announcement that she is quitting her job as Alaska governor before finishing even her first term has divided Republican ranks and the wider political community in a very familiar fashion.

Many establishment GOP operatives and political commentators of various stripes were withering, both about the decision and the way she announced it—in a jittery, hyperkinetic news conference that rambled between self-congratulation and bitter accusations at the foes she says are eager to destroy her.

The performance, by these lights, adds credence to the claims of some associates that Palin—burned by the intense scrutiny on her and the crossfire that swirls around her—is so fed up that she's ready to get out of elective politics. Even if it's only the small stage of Alaska politics she hopes to escape, skeptics say Friday's events also diminished and perhaps even demolished what was left of her viability as a 2012 presidential candiate.

But her defenders believed an unorthodox move, even if risky, has a clear logic and may only further increase her standing with conservatives who don't care what establishment figures in or out of the GOP think. Leaving the governor's office at the end of this month leaves her free to travel the country, command large speaking fees, and begin the process of rallying her devotees without pesky home-state opponents criticizing every move.

These varied reactions were an echo of the debates that have followed Palin every step since her nomination as John McCain's running mate ten months ago—a surprise that turned out to be just the first of many surprises served up by one of the most colorful and polarizing American political figures in a generation.

At the heart of these conflicting interpretations, say people close to Palin, is a woman who is herself deeply conflicted about her brief past in national politics and how to leverage her sudden fame for the future.

Some of her trusted outside advisers were not informed of her plans to suddenly resign from office until today – they thought she was only to announce she would not run for re-election.

Fred Malek, a longtime Republican fundraiser and Palin ally, played host to the governor and her husband, Todd, less than a month again in Washington and said it was "so clear to me that she was terribly unhappy with the position she was in and the role she was playing."

He didn't learn of Palin's decision until he got a phone call from the governor this morning, when she cited the pressures of a job that had become consumed with FOIA requests and ethics investigations and the demands it taken on her family and national political prospects.

Another prominent GOP source who is close to Palin, who also had no inkling of Palin's decision to quit until today, said: "Things had piled up pretty steep on her."

Meg Stapleton, Palin's Alaska-based spokesperson, called it "a fighting move."

But even Stapleton acknowledged that the job Palin said she loved during the press conference had become a drag

"It's a liberating feeling…she can't get out of there soon enough," said Stapleton.

But liberation comes at a potentially steep price. These include brutal reviews from many Republicans, who believe that quitting mid-term in the fashion she did amounts to political suicide.

"There is just no good way to say quitting has made her more qualified to run for higher office," said veteran GOP pollster Glen Bolger.

Until Friday, after all, Stapleton and others close to Palin had been saying for months that the governor would take an Alaska-first approach and eschew national affairs. The hope was to compile more of a record and develop more policy authority.

"I think Sarah Palin is on the verge of becoming the Miami Vice of American politics: Something a lot of people once thought was cool and then 20 years later look back, shake their heads and just kind of laugh," quipped Republican media consultant Todd Harris.

Even those who were less critical of her choice were taken aback by Palin's rambling, hard-to-follow news conference by the side of a lake outside her home. The performance had shades of Richard Nixon's "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore" news promise in 1962, as well as Mark Sanford's bizarre exercise in self-revelation just last month.

Palin mixed analogies to herself as a basketball player who knows "when it's time to pass the ball" with bitter commentary against "political operatives [who] descended on Alaska—digging for dirt" as part of a "superficial, wasteful political bloodsport."

"Palin is at her best when she's being folksy but there is no way to be folksy when you're resigning as governor," said veteran GOP strategist Dan Schnur.

She portrayed her resignation as a selfless choice done for the good of Alaskans.She said they will now be free of the expensive and distracting—and she said bogus—ethics inquiries generated by her new prominence. "Some Alaskans, maybe they don't mind wasting public dollars and state time, but I do," she said.

But some believe Palin, for all the loose and improvisational feel of her news conference, was making a calculated guess that she is now bigger than Alaska's small and remote political stage can handle.

With a recent book deal and ability for paid speaking engagements giving her great financial freedom, reasoned GOP communications strategist Carl Forti, "If she wants to run for national office it makes sense to get out of Alaska and around the lower 48. Resigning makes that possible."

Malek and some of her other outside advisers expressed skepticism that she would run for president in 2012, but others saw in the move today the beginnings of a national campaign.

"She's now made sure that she is entirely a movement candidate," said veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum. "She brings no real experience to the table at all, but now this frees her up to carve out her own Goldwater-like movement."

And then there is a practical matter, Shrum noted: Palin and her husband, with five children of their own and a new grandson, will likely never have to worry about money again.

"She could make more in two weeks on just speaking fees than in the rest of her time as governor," said Shrum.

The move may also be pragmatic if Palin really does want to lay the groundwork for a presidential run.

"I don't think you can do a competent job of being a governor of a state next door to Russia and run seriously for president of the United States," said Charlie Cook. "It's hard enough to do one of those two, let alone both. While Bill Clinton ran while being governor of Arkansas and George W. Bush as governor of Texas, Little Rock and Austin are not that far by Cessna Citation or Gulfstream from New Hampshire or Florida or California."

And, Cook noted, there is little political upside to being a governor during difficult economic times, when the options usually range from tax or fee increases to budget cuts.

"Bailing out early may avoid making some of those tough decisions," said Cook.

William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and an outspoken Palin defender, acknowledged Palin's move was "an enormous gamble" but said it could prove smart.

"Now she can do her book, give speeches, travel the country and the world, campaign for others, meet people, get more educated on the issues--and without being criticized for neglecting her duties in Alaska," said Kristol.

Stapleton cited issues Palin was passionate about – energy, national security and free enterprise – but indicated that the governor was being vague about what she planned to do next for a reason.

"Those blanks need to be filled in," said Stapleton when asked specifically what Palin planned after turning her office over to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell.

"The Commission Has Been Road-Blocked": Republicans' War On The FEC

.....

Pete Martin and Zachary Roth
June 30, 2009 - TPM Muckraker

.....

Last fall, James Ross, a New York City resident and a donor to several Democratic organizations, received an unusual letter. "Your name has been put in our database," Ross was told. "We are monitoring all reports of a wide variety of leftist organizations. As your name appears in subsequent reports, it is our intent to publicize your involvement in your local community. Should any of these organizations be found to be engaged in illegal or questionable activity, it is our intent to publicize your involvement with those activities."

The letter was signed by Howard Rich, a publicity-shy New York real-estate investor and the founder of the conservative activist group Americans for Limited Government. Rich and his group were accused by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee of illegally using Federal Election Commission disclosure reports to obtain the names and addresses of political donors in order to discourage them from making contributions -- a violation of election law. In April, three of the FEC's six commissioners voted to open an investigation into the matter. But the commission's three Republicans opposed a probe. The FEC deadlocked 3-3, and no action was taken against Rich.

That's happened with increasing frequency at the FEC lately. Election-law experts, supporters of campaign-finance regulations, and even some members of the commission itself are expressing growing concern about a string of cases in which the three Republicans on the commission -- led by Tom DeLay's former ethics lawyer -- have voted as a block against enforcement, preventing the commission from carrying out its basic regulatory function. As the normally mild-mannered Washington Post editorial board wrote recently: "The three Republican appointees are turning the commission into The Little Agency That Wouldn't: wouldn't launch investigations, wouldn't bring cases, wouldn't even accept settlements that the staff had already negotiated."

Craig Holman of Public Citizen told TPMmuckraker the commission is currently "defunct." (The FEC's press office declined to make any of the commissioners available for interviews.)

FEC watchers say the commission's three Republicans -- Donald McGahn, Matthew Petersen, and Caroline Hunter, each nominated by President Bush -- are acting out of philosophical opposition to the very idea of regulating campaign money. "It's the Republican caucus that actually believes there shouldn't be campaign-finance regulation," said Holman. "It is ideological. They are ideologically opposed to the purpose of the Federal Election Commission."

It may also have become personal. At an open meeting of the commission last week, there was barely concealed animosity between the Republican and Democratic commissioners, according to one attendee.

The result of this dysfunction -- along with the growing likelihood that the Supreme Court will soon strike down key aspects of campaign-finance law -- could be to dramatically increase the influence of money in political campaigns going forward. "The severe ideological split on the Commission raises the question of whether it will be able to function effectively as an enforcement agency in the upcoming election year," Brett Kappel, an election lawyer with Vorys, Sater, Seymour, and Pease told TPMmuckraker via email.

Rick Hasen, an election-law expert and a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, was blunter. "If things remain the way they're going, the campaign-finance rules come 2010, come 2012, are going to be much looser," he told TPMmuckraker. "Money's going to be able to play a much larger role than it has in the past."

Hasen continued: "If we don't fix the FEC very soon, we're going to go into the next election cycle with everyone knowing they can do whatever they want to do, and the Federal Election Commission won't clamp down on them."

"A Glorified Congressional Committee"

How did we get to this point?

At the root of the problem is the fact that, although officially the president nominates commissioners, in practice the job has been left to the relevant party leader in the Senate -- which means responsibility for picking Republican commissioners falls to GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell, the long-time point man for his party's opposition to campaign-finance regulation.

Things originally reached an impasse in December 2007, when the tenure of GOP recess appointee Hans Von Spakovsky, as well as two other recess appointments, expired. But McConnell -- whose office did not respond to TPMmuckraker's request for comment for this story -- refused to confirm any replacements unless Spakovsky, a prominent supporter of efforts to create obstacles to voting for poor people and minorities, was confirmed.

That left the commission with only two members -- it needs four to take action -- which was fine with McConnell, since it meant the commission was hamstrung. Eventually, in May, the impasse was broken when Spakovsky withdrew his nomination, and a full slate of replacement commissioners -- including McGahn -- was nominated.*

McGahn had been general counsel for the National Republican Congressional Committee, before serving as a legal adviser on campaign finance for Tom DeLay, both during the Jack Abramoff affair and when The Hammer was indicted for campaign-finance violations in Texas. Judging by comments McGahn has made about the role of the commission, he doesn't appear to conceive of it as the kind of powerful, independent enforcement agency that supporters of regulation think we need: "You're gonna appoint your guys to make sure you are taken care of." McGahn told the author of a 2003 academic study of the commission, as reported at the time by Roll Call (via Nexis). "The original intent was for it to be a glorified Congressional committee. That's the way I see it."

In other words, he's just McConnell's kind of guy. "Don McGahn was appointed to approve [public funds for McCain], and has since essentially shut down the agency," said Holman. The FEC, he said, has been made "ineffective" -- and not by accident. "This is what McConnell had in mind."

David Donnelly of Public Campaign agreed. "Clearly the commission has been road-blocked," Donnelly told TPMmuckraker. "There's a bloc on the commission led by Don McGahn that wants to take campaign-finance law in the wrong direction."

Indeed, since McGahn's appointment, the FEC's three Republicans have voted in a string of cases against enforcement, blocking the commission from taking action -- and often provoking unusually outraged responses from the commission's Democrats.

"A Refusal To Enforce The Law"

In addition to the Howard Rich case, here are a few more examples:

• A case in which the Chamber of Commerce was accused of illegally contributing $3 million in 2004 to bankroll the November Fund, a 527 group that had failed to register as a political action committee, despite having no advertised purpose other than to attack then vice-presidential candidate John Edwards over his past as a trial lawyer. In their Statement of Reasons after the vote against enforcement, Democratic commissioners Ellen Weintraub and Cynthia Bauerly wrote (pdf): "Our colleagues' refusal to accept the signed conciliation agreement with the November Fund amounts to a refusal to enforce the law."

• A case in which Wal-Mart was accused of having managers give presentations informing employees that the Employee Free Choice Act, if passed, would hurt Wal-Mart and its employees, and that the law would be passed if Democrats won Congress and the White House in 2008. As the Wall Street Journal revealed (sub req.) in August 2008, some presenters went off-script to attack EFCA and Barack Obama directly. In a report to commissioners, FEC employees said Wal-Mart later acknowledged "even more egregious" violations than those exposed by the Journal. But the commission's Republicans voted against opening an investigation even to determine whether violations of law had occurred.

• A case in which George Soros was accused of failing to report $272,000 associated with sending brochures to advertise an anti-Bush book during the 2004 presidential campaign. The Republican commissioners argued that the cost of the mailing list Soros used was not an independent expenditure. In response, Democratic commissioner Ellen Weintraub wrote (pdf): "One cannot do a mailing without a mailing list. It seems obvious to me that the distribution list is part of the distribution cost."

• A case in which Mitt Romney's presidential campaign and Kem Gardner, a Utah real estate developer, were accused of violating campaign-finance law after Gardner chartered a plane for $150,000 to fly about 200 Romney supporters from Utah to Boston to make fund-raising phone calls. The commission's Republicans claimed there was no proof that the Romney campaign had asked Gardner to charter the flight, and thus it wasn't certain that this was a campaign expense. But Democratic commissioners Weintraub and Cynthia Bauerly maintained that the flight was an obvious campaign contribution. "This was not a difficult case," they wrote.

"The President Has To Decide"

Of course, the one person who could do the most to get the commission back on track is President Obama. To do so, experts say, he could push to change the commission's structure -- perhaps by moving to a single commissioner -- making it more difficult for an anti-enforcement faction to block action.

But in early May, reformers' hopes that Obama is committed to a more pro-enforcement commission took a hit when he nominated John Sullivan to replace Weintraub, whose term has expired. "By nominating Sullivan, [Obama] basically sent the signal that at this point he's willing to go along with the status quo," said Hasen. Sullivan is a labor lawyer who has in the past argued against campaign-finance regulations on behalf of the SEIU.

Most experts believe that the White House supports stronger campaign-finance laws as a goal, but, with a host of other issues on its plate, is reluctant to pick a fight with the GOP Senate leader. "They're picking their priorities, and they don't want to take on Mitch McConnell right now," said Hasen. "I consider that unfortunate."

Holman agreed. McGahn's term, abridged by the Spakovsky holdup, has now expired as well, and Holman suggested that Obama could play a more active role in nominating McGahn's replacement -- as the president would be within his rights to do -- rather than leaving it to McConnell. "The president has to decide," said Holman. "He's either going to go with Mitch McConnell's appointee and render the FEC functionless, or he's going to break tradition and bring the FEC back to life."

The choice the president makes will likely help determine the level of influence that big money wields in electoral politics into the future. That seems like an issue worth spending some political capital on.

(Turn it up) Zen Moment of the Weekend

Taking anti-immigration rhetoric to a new xenophobic low – and citing Hispanic birth rates as proof – the so-called Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) has released a report essentially finding that illegal immigrants playing their radios, probably loudly, are the reason for high energy consumption and carbon emissions that threaten the planet. Who knew?

From the report: "America's massive immigration-fueled population growth was the single largest contributing factor to the nation's increased energy consumption and carbon emissions over the past 35 years."

- Abby Zimet, CommonDreams.org

http://sev.prnewswire.com/oil-energy/20090701/DC4125201072009-1.html