Why does Federal Election Commission Chairwoman Ellen Weintraub still have her job?
Weintraub should leave her position both because she has served 11 years beyond the normally prescribed term and, more importantly, because her repeated public comments give evidence of crusading, anti-Constitution attitudes. Her behavior is unbefitting someone in a job demanding dispassionate application of existing law.
The chairwoman’s most recent in a series of objectionable agitations came Aug. 30 on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes. There, while conveniently ascribing to foreigners the idea that the presidential Electoral College creates results that are “not legitimate,” Weintraub gave what amounted to an official imprimatur to that idea. Rather than defend our constitutional structure, she tacitly undermined its validity.
A single lapse in judgment like this might be forgivable. Alas, this wasn’t an isolated instance. Weintraub has a long history of intimating that her political views should supersede the Constitution she is sworn to serve and uphold.
In particular, Weintraub is no fan of the First Amendment. Rather than defend the free speech that is an essential part of free and fair elections, Weintraub has complained that the amendment has been “weaponized,” has said the FEC should take it upon itself to “blunt the impact” of a Supreme Court decision protecting free speech rights, and is hosting an event this month aimed at targeting supposed “disinformation” online.
How abominable. The FEC’s role is to enforce election law, not to decide which speech is legitimate. “The FEC has no business policing the truth or accuracy of speech of any kind by American citizens on the internet,” said Lee Goodman, a former Republican FEC chairman.
To repeat, an FEC commissioner’s job is to enforce the Constitution and existing laws, and Supreme Court decisions pertaining to them, not to lobby to change them. (Exceptions to this should be few and far between.) In most respects, the job is an administrative-enforcement role, not a policy-making one. By acting otherwise, Weintraub calls into question her own objectivity, meaning the real questions about lack of “legitimacy” should be aimed at her.
Meanwhile, Weintraub really shouldn’t still be a commissioner anyway. Federal law specifies a six-year term for FEC commissioners, with no immediate reappointment allowed. The catch, however, is that those currently serving can be “held over” until a replacement is confirmed by the Senate. The point of holdovers is to try to ensure all six commissioner slots are always filled.
No more than three members of any one party can serve on the commission. Alas, Senate Democrats didn’t want to lose the highly partisan Weintraub. Eleven years after her six-year term was supposed to end, they never have suggested a replacement, and she hasn’t had the decency to leave. Republicans, seeing this end-run around the law’s intent, subsequently refused to suggest replacements for several of their own commissioners.
Even with those holdovers, though, the FEC is now down to just three commissioners, which leaves it without a quorum. As explained by former Republican commissioner Hans von Spakovsky, this means politicians accused of campaign-finance violations, such as controversial Minnesota Democrat Ilhan Omar, can’t even be formally investigated.
President Trump should end this impasse. Whether or not Senate Democrats offer new names for their commission “slots,” Trump should, first, choose two nominees for the open Republican spots. Then he should nominate a Democrat for Weintraub’s post and ask the Republican Senate to jam through that nominally Democratic nominee as well. If Democrats don’t like that power play, they can always forward their own choice as a replacement for Weintraub, as they should have done 11 years ago.
Either way, Ellen Weintraub must go.
