In the matter of John Ensign the FEC ignored the advice of their general counsel and opted not to charge Ensign with violation election law. The reason, according to an unnamed official is that Ensign told them it was legal, and they take people at their word. Say what? If they are going to take such matters on faith, it defeats the purpose of the FEC. But is that the real reason?
A Federal Elections Commission official told the New York Times that the commission took former Sen. John Ensign (R-NV) at his word when he told them the $96,000 payment his parents gave to his mistress and her husband was a "gift" and not "severance," which would have made it illegal.
As TPM pointed out last week, the Senate Ethics report on Ensign found that the Nevada Republican called the payout a "severance" in his original statement until his lawyer said that would raise criminal issues. "If this statement doesn’t get the attention of the U.S. Attorney’s Office, then nothing will," his lawyer wrote in an email uncovered by the Ethics Committee.
Now behind the scenes, the FEC is acknowledging that it got taken.
"I hate it when people lie to us," one FEC official told the New York Times. "If somebody submits a sworn affidavit, we usually do not go back and question it, unless we have something else to go on. Maybe we should not be so trusting."… [emphasis added]
Inserted from <TPM>
I think this is the problem. The FEC is made up of six people and no more than three can represent the same party. That means there are three Democrats. Historically, Democrats on such commissions behave ethically. That also means that there are three Republicans. That is the problem.
In my opinion, the FEC should be nonpartisan, not bipartisan.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.