Still more obstructionism — GOP blocks vote on FEC nominees

This may seem like inside-pool, but it’s an interesting example of how congressional Republicans chose to do business these days.

There are currently four vacancies on the Federal Election Commission, two of which are to be filled with Republicans, two of which to be filled by Dems. For one of the GOP’s selections, Bush tapped Hans von Spakovsky, a top political appointee in Bush’s Justice Department. Dems balked, pointing to von Spakovsky’s work in voter-suppression schemes.

At that point, Bush and his Senate cohorts had a few options:

* Withdraw the von Spakovsky nomination, and replace him with a less ridiculous choice;

* Allow votes on the nominees individually, clearing the way for at least three uncontroversial nominees to clear the chamber easily;

* Demand one vote on all four nominees, including von Spakovsky, and refuse to compromise.

Take a wild guess which option they chose.

From what Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said on the Senate floor last night, it appears so. Given the ongoing opposition to Spakovsky by Sens. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Russ Feingold (D-WI), Reid called for a vote on the individual nominees to the Federal Election Commission. But the Republican leadership, as they have from the beginning, insisted on voting on the four nominees, both Democratic and Republican, together, thus protecting Spakovsky from being voted down, but also preventing the confirmation of any of the other nominees.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) decided, arbitrarily, “They’re all four going to go together or none of them will be approved.”

How sadly predictable. The Senate was more than prepared to approve three FEC nominees, including one Republican, but the minority party felt so strongly about backing one ridiculous nominee that they’ve shut down the entire process.

I suppose the Senate Republicans assumed Dems would back down. Fortunately, that didn’t happen, because there was no way von Spakovsky deserved to be approved. He was, after all, a leading player in what McClatchy labeled the administration’s “vote-suppression agenda.” When it came to voter disenfranchisement, von Spakovsky was a reliable member of Team Bush. That’s not a compliment.

Naturally, the president decided to give him a promotion for his efforts, rewarding von Spakovsky with a six-year FEC nomination. Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick recently made a very powerful case that the nomination itself was insulting.

For those of you who want more background on von Spakovsky, I hope readers will take a couple of minutes to read Lithwick’s whole piece, but the point to remember here is that he has been at the heart of the indefensible, right-wing effort to prevent eligible voters from participating in elections. Tom DeLay’s re-redistricting scheme that violated the Voting Rights Act? Von Spakovsky approved it. Georgia’s re-redistricting scheme to disenfranchise black voters? Von Spakovsky approved that, too. The conservative campaign to fabricate an epidemic of voter fraud? Von Spakovsky helped create the scheme and execute it. When a U.S. Attorney in Minnesota discovered that Native American voters were being disenfranchised? It was Von Spakovsky who shut down the investigation.

As Lithwick concluded, “More than almost anyone else — perhaps even including Alberto Gonzales — Hans von Spakovsky represents a Justice Department turned on its head for partisan purposes. Even if a seat on the FEC is merely symbolic, the last thing Democrats should be doing is confirming to that seat someone who symbolizes contempt for what it means to cast a vote.”

As of today, we’ve probably heard the last of him. Good.

How is it that the Minority leader gets to dictate that the vote will be for all four rather than just one? And of course the Dems just go with it because that’s what Democratic Senators do these days…

It never ceases to amaze me that the Republicans evidently understand how to manipulate the Senate about 1,000 times better than the Democrats.

  • It’s been almost seven years of this, is anyone surprised anymore when lil’ Mitch takes his ball and goes home? If these guys played BYF in my neighborhood we’d have kicked their asses and taken the ball by now.

  • Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken.) decided, arbitrarily, “They’re all four going to go together or none of them will be approved.”
    ************************************************

    They are the kings when in they’re in the majority, they are the kings when they’re in the minority.

    Take off the gloves Dems! Give ’em the smash mouth politics that they give you. There is sometimes no other way to deal with a bully, at least in the short run, and especially after you realize that they are not willing to be reasonable or compromize.

  • Harry Reid, pro-life Mormon. That’s our fearless progressive leader.

    BTW, I noticed on Glenn Grenwald’s blog one post had 248 comments. I’m wondering who would write the 248th comment and who in the world would read it?

    PS. I just made an error on this comment and WordPress didn’t erase everything I’d written. Have my prayers reached the planet Kolob and been answered?

  • This is amazing:

    For those of you who want more background on von Spakovsky, I hope readers will take a couple of minutes to read Lithwick’s whole piece, but the point to remember here is that he has been at the heart of the indefensible, right-wing effort to prevent eligible voters from participating in elections. Tom DeLay’s re-redistricting scheme that violated the Voting Rights Act? Von Spakovsky approved it. Georgia’s re-redistricting scheme to disenfranchise black voters? Von Spakovsky approved that, too. The conservative campaign to fabricate an epidemic of voter fraud? Von Spakovsky helped create the scheme and execute it. When a U.S. Attorney in Minnesota discovered that Native American voters were being disenfranchised? It was Von Spakovsky who shut down the investigation.

    I read the letter, in Lithwick’s piece, from the bunch of whiny bureaucrats upset that they may actually have to do work instead of sitting on their behinds in their cushy jobs. Remember, bureaucrats are hired employees, whereas political appointments have to go through the Senate before stepping foot on the job. No accusation of von Spakovsky doing anything wrong is based on any fact; it is strictly an opinion.

    You know what is ridiculous, we’ve been hearing for years from the moonbats how much voter fraud has been going on since to Bush v. Gore; yet, when an appointee from a Republican President makes a recommendation to curb potential voter fraud, the same moonbats say there is no evidence of voter fraud. So which is it? Or is it that moonbats, like the spoiled brat “Pinky” Reid, throw hissy fits when they don’t get their own way?

  • Re: #6:

    Generally, it’s considered rude to come into someone’s house and make cracked up, false, slanderous accusations about them.

    So why do you do that here?

  • You left out one very important option: Republicans could allow votes on the nominees in pairs of one Democrat and one Republican. That way two new members could be confirmed even with von Spakovsky spiked, allowing for a quorum to do business, while maintaining the FEC’s bipartisan balance.

  • Withdraw the von Spakovsky nomination, and replace him with a less ridiculous choice…

    Will sez: How is it that the Minority leader gets to dictate that the vote will be for all four rather than just one?

    Let’s turn that around: How is it that the Democrats get to dictate who the Republicans will nominate? If the tables were turned, you’d all be screaming to high heaven.

  • R Johnston #8, that would be a sensible compromise. Paul in NJ, the confirmation process is not a rubber stamp. Both sides expect to give input. But to play all or nothing is a stupid way to run a country.

  • It is sad that this requires saying, Paul, but here goes.

    Bush can nominate whomever he wants, as has been shown endlessly.

    Some nominations can be considered offensive. Specifically, nominating foxes to guard henhouses is generally going to be considered offensive to all those who care about hens.

    Whenever Bush nominates someone to serve in the executive branch, it falls upon congress to verify that the president hasn’t tried to turn king and insert obviously unqualified persons into positions of power. This is especially necessary when those being nominated are especially corrupt in exactly the area they are meant to oversee.

    Note that the relevant definitions in this case are-

    Nominate: to propose (someone) for appointment or election to an office

    Confirm: to make valid by necessary formal approval

  • we’ve been hearing for years from the moonbats how much voter fraud has been going on since to Bush v. Gore; — StevelL@6

    Actually, that’s not true. Either you’re misinformed or else you’re being purposefully obtuse/disingenuous. “Voter fraud” is fraud committed by *voters* — people who vote in more than one precinct, people who vote even though they have no right to (non-citizens, for example), etc. Voter fraud is extremely rare, though you wouldn’t have known it, if you judged by the amount of screaming that the wingnuts have been doing about it.

    But that is *not* what happened in the Bush vs Gore case. There, it wasn’t the voters who stole the elections; it was the Rethugs in the SCOTUS, with a little help from their friends: faulty voting machinery and a couple of Secretaries of State.

    So we haven’t been complaining about voter fraud, because it didn’t happen. If you think that’s what you’ve heard, then perhaps your ears need cleaning.

  • Up or down vote! Up or down vote! Up or down vote!

    Or, weird package vote, when it suits us! No separating them. Yeah, that’s it!

  • Isn’t testifying in front of the Senate part of the confirmation process? I’d take off a day of work to watch von Spakovsky try to explain his sordid past.

  • #7:

    Whom did I slander? Whiny bureaucrats? Did you read that letter? I did, that’s how I could tell it was written by whiny bureaucrats. Know how I know? Because in the private sector, I am a whiny bureaucrat in a cushy job, and I can spot this kind of BS a mile away.

    If you think I slandered Reid, I think not. He is a spoiled brat.

    #12 said:

    Voter fraud is extremely rare, though you wouldn’t have known it, if you judged by the amount of screaming that the wingnuts have been doing about it.

    I live in the Chicago area. Richard J. Daley still votes.

    All kidding aside, from the 2006 election we have three here (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003982533_acorn30m.html?syndication=rss), and three more (http://www.nlpc.org/view.asp?action=viewArticle&aid=2048) in Missouri padded the voter rolls with 35,000 fraudulent registration cards. All six were members of the group known as ACORN, an organization that seems to help the Democratic Party “register” new “voters”. Like those 35,000 in Missouri.

    I would say that one doesn’t need a lot of people to defraud an election. My guess is that some may not know about these cases because they aren’t reported through the Democratic Party’s mouthpiece, the mainstream media.

  • libra sez: “Voter fraud” is fraud committed by *voters* — people who vote in more than one precinct, people who vote even though they have no right to (non-citizens, for example), etc.

    Sorry, not so:

    But the most interesting news came out of Seattle, where on Thursday local prosecutors indicted seven workers for Acorn, a union-backed activist group that last year registered more than 540,000 low-income and minority voters nationwide and deployed more than 4,000 get-out-the-vote workers. The Acorn defendants stand accused of submitting phony forms in what Secretary of State Sam Reed says is the “worst case of voter-registration fraud in the history” of the state.

    The list of “voters” registered in Washington state included former House Speaker Dennis Hastert, New York Times columnists Frank Rich and Tom Friedman, actress Katie Holmes and nonexistent people with nonsensical names such as Stormi Bays and Fruto Boy. The addresses used for the fake names were local homeless shelters. Given that the state doesn’t require the showing of any identification before voting, it is entirely possible people could have illegally voted using those names.

  • socratic_me sez: Whenever Bush nominates someone to serve in the executive branch, it falls upon congress to verify that the president hasn’t tried to turn king and insert obviously unqualified persons into positions of power.

    And that’s why Congress gets to vote on them… isn’t it? If Bush were to “turn king” he’d just cry “Off with their heads!”. (You do realize, don’t you, that your credibility is seriously called into question with stuff like that?)

  • Steven L***maybe the others forgot to tell you what a lying stupid shit you are. You are lying entirely about Mo. 6 voter fraud cases from acorn (not 35000 and there was no padded 35000 registered by acorn either)…2went before a judge and it was determined that they did not know they were still registered from another address. All the evidence is at the Brad blog and has been documented. The so called “voter fraud” you allude to was pure propaganda by a right wing organization which has now removed its web site. Go check it out. If you’d lie so badly about that then you’d lie about it all. You’re a stupid shit for thinking we don’t fact check on this site and don’t recognize a liar (I can spot BS a mile away…better stand closer to the mirror). And it’s “election fraud” that is rampant and perpetuated by suppressing the vote as in Von Spakovsky. btw…he’s already been before the senate once and lied his ass off. Now go troll somewhere else. If you think dems are whinny for pointing out the truth, that the RNC is just a crime organization under a restraining order for ‘caging’, and that Bush was never “elected” to president or that voter fraud is NOT an issue but election fraud IS a proven issue then you have no business commenting on confirmations to the FEC…and thjis

    “…these cases because they aren’t reported through the Democratic Party’s mouthpiece, the mainstream media.”

    What a bogus statement…MSM is the democratic Mouthpiece….HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
    This in itself proves what an ignorant dipshit you are.

    ***and Paul in NJ*** This also has been debunked at the Bradblog sometime ago. Yopu come to this site and strt off with this…”

    “…But the most interesting news came out of Seattle, where on Thursday local prosecutors indicted seven…”
    WTF…the most interesting news comes out of Seattle…HAHAHAHAHA. You’re quoting??? It was 6 ACORN workers in MO and now it’s 7 ACORN workers in Washington. What a load of crap to even bring up this debunked propaganda when talking about election fraud and voter suppression instigated by Spakovsky who lied to the senate who is guilty of all accusations against him even though he can’t be jailed for them, whose own staff is warning us as to his character and history. Peddle your bull somewhere else, this is a site for rational people involved in public discourse not public intercourse.

  • @SteveIL – 6

    Hmm, seems you’re unaware of the political appointment process. Only top-level appointees are confirmed by the Senate. The rest of them are just put in place. Von Spakovsky was a recess appointee to the FEC last year, but before that he was was Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights in the U.S. Department of Justice (per Wikipedia). I’m pretty sure that the counsel for one of the more than 30 Assistant Attorneys General isn’t confirmed by the Senate. Now, while von Spakovsky has an impressive academic record, and likely isn’t incompetent (although perhaps misguided), political appointees are notorious for having no clue. They’re given jobs because they’re owed a favor, not because they’re especially qualified.

  • Joseph Rich, the first name on the letter, contributed to the Soros-backed America Coming Together (ACT) back in 2004 (look it up at the FEC, and search on individual contributions; Rich’s contribution can’t be missed since the occupation listed under his name is “DOJ/ATTORNEY”. Earlier this year, ACT paid a civil penalty of $775,000 to the FEC after the Commission found:

    …that approximately $70 million in disbursements characterized by ACT as “administrative expenses” for door-to-door canvassing, direct mail and telemarketing were actually attributable to clearly identified federal candidates and were required either to be paid with 100% federal funds or to be allocated between federal and non-federal candidates based on the time or space devoted to the candidates. Under either method, ACT was required to use a substantially higher proportion of federal funds than that reflected in either the estimated or adjusted funds expended allocation ratio for administrative expenses used by ACT in 2003-2004.

    The Commission also concluded that even for the approximately $30 million in disbursements that could properly be characterized as administrative and generic voter drive expenses, ACT should have used at least 90% federal and 10% non-federal funds. Therefore, ACT should have used approximately $27 million in federal funds and approximately $3 million in non-federal funds to pay for these expenses.

    For a guy who worked as Chief of the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division in the DOJ to have contributed to ACT (while he was Chief), it shows that this is nothing more than a display of the political partisanship of at least the first person of those who wrote the letter.

  • bjobotts sez: This [voter fraud issue] also has been debunked at the Bradblog…

    Um, no it hasn’t. The blog didn’t mention, let alone attempt to refute, any of the mainstream media reporting on the fact that ACORN has been the subject of numerous vote-fraud investigations in several states.

    bjobotts sez: It was 6 ACORN workers in MO and now it’s 7 ACORN workers in Washington.

    It was both of those – and other states besides. What you call ‘propaganda’ has been reported nationwide — why don’t you look up some news coverage instead of getting your opinions from a left-wing blog?

    And a friendly word of advice: spittle-strewn namecalling is no substitute for reasoned argument. Facts work so much better.

  • Um, yes, that huge outbreak of voter fraud in Missouri that made no difference at all in any election, gets prominent mention, but the Spakovsky-sponsored purges of voter rolls in Florida, for example, which disenfranchised thousands of legitimate voters — the right wing isn’t interested in that.

    Penny-ante voter fraud occurs every election, largely because a lot of the population is clueless about precise voting requirements. It makes no difference, as it is as equally likely to favor one side as the other. These cases are generally not worth prosecuting, as education is more useful in prevention.

    Using “voter fraud” to disenfranchise a lot of people, now that’s criminal, and it was Spakovsky’s signature tune while he was in charge of the office in the DoJ that is supposed to enforce fair elections.

    The method these the right-wing apologists use to try and confuse is always to try and focus on one particular occurrence. They’ll never step back and look at the whole picture.

  • Charles sez: that huge outbreak of voter fraud in Missouri that made no difference at all in any election

    I hope you’re not saying that you’re cool with fraudulent ‘voter registration’ drives as long as it doesn’t swing the election. (Or because such drives invariably sign up non-existent voters as Democratics.)

    Charles sez: but the Spakovsky-sponsored purges of voter rolls in Florida, for example, which disenfranchised thousands of legitimate voters — the right wing isn’t interested in that.

    I’m not right wing, so I wouldn’t know what they’re interested in. And not even the infamous BradBlog seems to suggest that what’s-his-name did anything illegal; no process is perfect, as you know. But purging voter rolls of felons (you’re against that, too?) is a good thing; it’s also Federal law. If actual voters were mistakenly purged, then restore them (as I see they were).

  • Steve,

    You cannot point to anything I said that indicates that I find voter fraud acceptable.

    Please. Don’t claim that these Florida voters were “mistakenly purged” and then “restored” as if this happened automatically — this is dishonest. Spakovsky, deliberately misconstruing his job, prompted Florida to purge their voter rolls. The purge took place, in which many thousands of legitimate voters were taken off the rolls, there was an election, in which these voters, who could have been expected to vote Democratic, were disenfranchised, a big investigation, and the state of Florida re-instated the voters — but meanwhile, they couldn’t vote.

    This, by itself, outnumbers, by a factor of 100 to 1, any effect of the penny-ante “frauds” you cited.

    Spakovsky has never apologized or even answered for his actions. Do you defend them?

  • Charles said:

    Steve,

    You cannot point to anything I said that indicates that I find voter fraud acceptable.

    Actually, it was Paul in NJ who said it. However, I do agree with Paul in NJ and point to this:

    Penny-ante voter fraud occurs every election, largely because a lot of the population is clueless about precise voting requirements. It makes no difference, as it is as equally likely to favor one side as the other. These cases are generally not worth prosecuting, as education is more useful in prevention.

    Excuse me, but when three people defrauded 35,000 voter registration cards, that isn’t penny-ante, nor does it have anything to do with education. This and those in the Seattle cases are the ones that got caught. It’s anybody’s guess as to how many haven’t been caught yet. And it definitely leads me, in agreement with Paul, to believe you do think voter fraud is at least somewhat acceptable.

    Again, this whole thing has to do with a whiny letter written by a bunch of bureaucrats in the Voting Section of the DoJ, whose Chief donated to the ethically questionable Soros-backed ACT group, and attempted to convince people this politically motivated screed had to do with the rule of law, and it doesn’t. Plus, it also shows that “Pinky” Reid had another in a long line of hissy fits, more than likely due to the frustration he is probably feeling because he is such a failure as Senate Majority Leader.

    If anybody is being slandered, by a whole host of people, it is von Spakovsky.

  • Steve — or Paul,

    Come on, the “thousands of registration cards” you cite were “questionable” only in the sense that some of them were found, by ACORN, to be fraudulent, the workers who turned them in were fired and reported — by ACORN. The number of cards that were actually found to be fraudulent were?

    Right. You have no idea. It was a minuscule fraction. But you get your “information” from Glen Reynolds, and you believe it implicitly. Well, forgive me if I don’t.

    The information about Spakovsky is a matter of public record, as you could check, if you had any interestest in fairness.

  • Charles said:

    The information about Spakovsky is a matter of public record, as you could check, if you had any interestest in fairness.

    You are assuming I accept the definition “liberals” give for what they are calling voter suppression schemes. Or, for that matter, who is actually politicizing the DoJ. I don’t. In fact, I would say that it is anyone who would try to call the information from Joseph Rich, pulled from a letter written in part by a bureaucrat, and a section chief at that, who donated to the hyper-partisan ACT, as objective. It shouldn’t be considered objective at all, just an opinion. And a hyper-partisan one at that.

  • Steve,

    If you were, in truth, objective, you might wonder why Spakovsky hasn’t taken one of the several opportunities to testify before Congress to tell his side, rather than hiding.

  • Charles,

    The Lithwick piece includes a link to an article in The Politico that discussed von Spakovsky’s confirmation hearing back in June of this year. So he’s already testified before Congress. What’s interesting is this stuff from The Hill:

    The Senate Rules Committee on Wednesday sent four Federal Election Commission (FEC) nominations to the floor without recommendations, an unprecedented maneuver aimed at accommodating Chairman Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) objections to one contested GOP appointee.

    /snip

    During the Rule Committee’s executive meeting Wednesday, Feinstein said she could not support his nomination, asking instead for a vote on each nominee rather than consideration of all four nominees together in one vote, as the committee traditionally has done.

    Republicans on the panel objected, arguing that the move breaks all known committee precedent on moving FEC nominations. They are usually considered in pairs or all together, because the agency has three members from each party and each party has deferred to the other’s choices.

    “The precedent is very clear,” said Sen. Bob Bennett (Utah), the ranking Republican on the panel. “Nominations to the FEC have always been reported en bloc and in pairs.”

    But Feinstein said committee rules governing FEC nominations allow only for passing nominations that have unanimous consent, which her objection would prevent.

    /snip

    After about a half-hour of negotiation, Feinstein and Bennett then agreed to pass all of the nominations without recommendation.
    Feinstein, however, warned she would voice her concerns about von Spakovsky’s nomination when it reaches the Senate floor for a vote.

    /snip

    Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who was on hand to back Bennett’s assertions about Senate precedent, said he would not tolerate any attempt to separate von Spakovsky’s nomination from the other three on the floor.

    “None of these nominees will move across the Senate unless they move together,” he said. “The view has always been that the Democrats pick the Democrat candidates and Republicans pick the Republicans.”

    Like the FCC, the FEC is one of those agencies with an equal number of Democrats and Republicans, with the members of the parties confirming the nominations (and Bush did nominate the two Democrats, who would be confirmed, as well as the two Republicans). Effectively, the fault (again) lies with “Pinky” Reid for not sticking with the agreement set by the Rules Committee, whose chairman (Feinstein), as it was, was trying to ignore committee precedent, and having a vote on all four at once. Just as “Pinky” used obstruction for qualified judicial nominations when he was the Senate Minority Leader, he is now the one doing the obstructing as the Senate Majority Liar.

  • Comments are closed.