Over at Skeptic’s Eye (where regular blogger Allison Hayward is out of the country), former FEC commissioner Brad Smith and anti-campaign-finance-regulation-progressive (there’s a mouthful) Bob Bauer are having a fascinating discussion of why the Federal Election Commission is broken. It’s not, as John McCain & Co. would tell you, because the agency is "captive" to the very parties it regulates.

Instead, both agree that the agency is captive to a far more dangerous crowd: the campaign-finance-regulation lobby.

To quote from Bauer’s most recent installment:

First: the reform community is an interest organized solely for the
purpose of monitoring, enforcing and seeking change in the law. The
resources they devote to this purpose vastly exceed the sums that
candidates and political organizations will spare from budgets reserved
for their core missions.

Second, the reform organizations
active in law enforcement and law-making efforts control press
coverage. To the extent that the FEC is reached by public appeals or
pressure, it is largely through the press. On any given day, a member
of the Commission or the Office of General Counsel may or may not hear
from a candidate or party, in pleadings or testimony, but she will scan
the papers and read the editorial or op-ed output.

This is undoubtedly true. Every time an enforcement or regulatory issue comes before the FEC, like clockwork the Washington Post will chime in with an editorial ghost written by Democracy 21.

What’s even worse about this whole system is that the process is practically designed to be used as a political weapon, as opposed to a regulatory one. To quote Brad Smith’s most recent entry:

The complaint process is one that actually provides an incentive to
file frivolous complaints. The complainant typically benefits merely by
filing the complaint, and rarely gains any added benefit from the
resolution of the complaint. This latter point is true even if the case
goes against the respondent, since the resolution will usually come
after the election, a happenstance dictated in most cases by even the
most minimal regard for due process – such as allowing time for an
answer and an investigation. Complainants bear none of the cost of
investigation or litigation, all of which is thrown onto the
government. These factors provide a strong incentive to file weak or
frivolous complaints, aiming less at vindicating any public right than
at harassing political opponents. And this in turn creates an incentive
to sensationalize the charges.

These are two of the sharpest people in the country on the problems with campaign-finance regulation. Some of it’s a bit dense (which is precisely the intent of the people trying to shut you up). But anyone concerned with the survival of free speech in the place where it matters most — in the midst of political campaigns — should check out the discussion.