FEC ‘reform’ a smokescreen to weaponize government against free speech – The Hill (blog)

Sen. Joe DonnellyJoe DonnellyGOP rep jumps into Indiana Senate race OPINION | Wendy Davis: Collins and Murkowski inspire the next generation of women in politics Anti-abortion Democrats fading from the scene MORE (D-Ind.)recently introducedthe Restoring Integrity to Americas Elections Act. Despite the innocuous name, this is yet another attempt to weaponize government against free speech, free association and political dissent.

The legislation wouldoverhaulthe Federal Election Commission (FEC) by lowering the number of FEC commissioners from six to five, supposedly putting an end to gridlock. The bill would also reduce partisanship by limiting commissioners to serving one term and granting the president power to nominate an FEC chair to serve for 10 years. This chair would have the authority to act independently of other commissioners, centralizing power in a single unelected political appointee.

Donnellys legislation will openly weaponize the FEC, as it allows one side of the aisle to impose its will when there is legitimate disagreement over complex legal matters. The House version of the bill sponsored by Rep. Jim Renacci (R-Ohio) already hasmore than 10 bipartisan co-sponsors. Perhaps Renaccisnow-floundering campaignfor Ohio governor drove him to support such an un-conservative idea to pander to liberal voters.

For decades, the independent, six-member FEC has remained bipartisan by design, precisely because it has the power to restrict speech about politicsthe very heart of our freedoms of speech and association.

Under the proposed Donnelly-Renacci legislation, Democrats and Republicans would receive two commissioners each, allowing the president to pick the tiebreaker for the next decade. Consolidating partisan control for 10 years at a time does not sound like an improvement.

Democratic Commissioner Ellen Weintraub, a proponent of all-powerful FEC Chair, exemplifies why it cannot work: These roles are innately partisan. Weintraub ignores Democrat malfeasance while actively lobbying her agency colleagues to probe the reported attempts of Russia to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In asensationalist June memo, Weintraub claimed Russias alleged activities in our 2016 presidential election may represent an unprecedented threat to the very foundations of our American political community. Yet she disregards such concerns when a Democrat is involved.

The same commissioner has sought toregulate the internet,fine Fox News Channelfor includingmorecandidates in a 2015 Republican primary debate, and routinelyassails her fellow commissioners.

Weintraub complains about partisan dysfunction at the FEC,lamentingdivisions on ideological grounds. But she fails to understand her perceived dysfunctionher colleagues not agreeing with heris the natural outcome of a checks-and-balances system. There are reasonable differences in interpretation of complex election law and its application to particular facts. Dysfunction proves the FEC is not controlled by a single side of the aisle. Giving Weintraubor a Republican equivalentthe power to persecute speakers and criminalize speech is just plain crazy.

Recent attempts to reform the FEC only prolong Americas unfortunately long history of misplaced anti-speech activism. Surreptitiously-named liberal groups like the Center for Public Integrityroutinely lamentmoney in politics. They fearmonger with threatening terminology, from unlimited cash donors to shell game and aggressive trafficking. Left-wing activists like these revert to visceral depictions of Sheldon Adelson and the Koch brothers as an us vs. them ploynot unlike the failed Occupy Wall Street movement.

Any attack on free speech is ultimately an attack on every Americans constitutional right to free expression, no matter how much money is involved. Big money in politics only exposes us to more ideas, while we, the citizens, retain the right to vote in secret at the ballot box. The dissemination of more ideas translates to more information, leaving us with more power to make informed choices about candidates or political issuesour own decision.

Only those who believe Americans are too stupid to make their own decisions think a few more TV ads is a bad idea. The American people should reject the Donnelly-Renacci mistake.

DanBackeris founding attorney of political.law, a campaign finance and political law firm in Alexandria, Virginia. He has served as counsel to more than 100 campaigns, candidates, PACs, and political organizations.

The views expressed by this author are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

See the rest here:
FEC 'reform' a smokescreen to weaponize government against free speech - The Hill (blog)