Panel Wants More Money to Police Campaign Funding

During most of its history, the Federal Election Commission, charged with enforcing campaign finance laws, has acquired an unenviable image as a somnolent watchdog.

But faced with a crisis in public confidence over the funding of political campaigns, the watchdog suddenly woke up and barked, sounding an alarm that focused attention on what many believe to be the root cause of the commission’s defects: its uneasy relationship with Capitol Hill.

Citing allegations of campaign finance law violations “on an unparalleled scale,” including charges that the Democrats collected foreign and other illegal contributions to aid President Clinton’s reelection, the agency told Congress it needs a hefty boost in funding to do its job.

On most cases the agency moves slowly, if at all--a style that rarely inspires scrupulous adherence to the tittles of campaign finance law.

“They’re not even a factor, from where I sit,” a senior national party fund-raiser said, reflecting the attitude of many political pros. “Knowing that there may be a fine [for violating the law] but that it will be three years away” is hardly a deterrent to playing fast and loose with the rules.

A shortage of funding is only part of the reason for the commission’s unfavorable reputation. A more fundamental cause is the determination of many members of Congress, wary of interference with their own fund-raising, to keep the watchdog on a short leash.

Indeed, when they created the agency in 1974, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, lawmakers insisted on having the right to appoint four of its six commissioners. This provision was overturned by the Supreme Court as a legislative intrusion on the executive authority of the president.

But critics claim that presidents of both parties have tended to pay unusual deference to Congress in nominating the commissioners, thus giving the lawmakers, at least in part, what they wanted in the first place.

Despite this, commissioners at times have behaved too independently to suit the lawmakers. So in 1979, Congress stripped away the agency’s authority to conduct random audits of congressional campaigns. Instead, the agency must have hard-to-come-by evidence of possible wrongdoing before audits.

In the early 1980s, Congress even considered abolishing the commission.

All current commissioners have been with the agency since that period, pointed out Trevor Potter, a George Bush appointee and former FEC chairman. “They all saw the commission being threatened by Congress, and the lesson they took away was that we have to be careful what we kick over.”

The 104th Congress reinforced that lesson when it made sharp cuts in an already-approved FEC budget after the commission proposed regulations to implement a congressionally mandated ban on the members’ use of campaign funds for personal expenses. Few people on the Hill will concede a direct connection, but as Democratic Commissioner Scott Thomas wryly observed: “Perhaps it was a remarkable coincidence.”

*

As it faces a bumper crop of complaints from the 1996 campaign--up nearly 30% from 1992--the commission still is trying to live down its reputation for laggardness. A streamlined audit process now completes presidential campaign audits in no more than two years, FEC staffers brag. But they concede that settlement agreements over penalties can take months longer to consummate. And with a mounting backlog of cases, commissioners are leery about taking on the extra burden from the proposed bipartisan campaign finance reform legislation backed by Clinton.

In addition, no more than three of the agency’s six commissioners can belong to any one party, which leads to frequent partisan deadlocks on significant issues. Some reformers suggest that appointing a seventh, independent commissioner could prevent such logjams. Republican Commissioner Joan Aikens isn’t so sure. “I don’t know that you can appoint someone who is truly independent.”

In the end, the future of the commission is out of its hands, reformers concede. It can’t get any more efficient than the Congress that funds it and the president who appoints its members want it to be.