[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 41 (Thursday, March 7, 2019)]
[Senate]
[Page S1718]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 H.R. 1

  Mr. McCONNELL. Now on another matter, this week Democrats in the 
House are expected to pass sweeping legislation I call the Democratic 
politician protection act. It aims to give Washington, DC, vast new 
control over elections, give tax dollars to political campaigns, and 
give election lawyers more opportunities to determine the outcome of 
our elections.
  Today I want to discuss how it would open up the bipartisan Federal 
Election Commission to a hostile partisan takeover.
  When Congress passed and amended the Federal Election Campaign Act 
after Watergate, the FEC was created as a six-member body, with an even 
number of commissioners and no more than three from the same party. At 
least four votes--four--would be required to take action--a built-in 
safeguard against one party seizing control of the FEC.
  Well, House Democrats want to get rid of that. Their Democratic 
politician protection act would cut the FEC to a five-member body with 
two members from each party and a nominal Independent who, 
interestingly enough, would be handpicked by whoever the sitting 
President was.
  Now, people on both sides of the aisle used to see right through 
these kinds of tricks. Back in 1976 Senator Alan Cranston--a California 
Democrat who was, by the way, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate--warned 
about this. He said: ``The FEC has such potential for abuse in our 
democratic society that the President should not be given power over 
the Commission.''
  As recently as 2 years ago, an outgoing Democratic FEC commissioner--
one of the most active and liberal regulators in the Commission's 
history said: ``I don't have a problem with the 3-3 split at the 
commission . . . it was established that way in order to ensure that 
there was not going to be a partisan effort to use investigations 
against one political party or another.''
  But now--now--Democrats want to scrap the neutrality and bring on the 
partisan takeover. Democrats respond by saying this fifth member would 
have to be affiliated with neither the Republican nor Democratic Party. 
They would have to be an Independent.
  Give me a break. Give me a break.
  One current commissioner is nominally an Independent, except the 
Washington Post reports this gentleman ``often votes with the 
Democrats,'' and he happens to be a longtime friend of former Majority 
Leader Harry Reid. He had actually previously worked as an election 
lawyer for Senator Reid. This is the Independent on the FEC now. He had 
often worked as an election lawyer for Senator Reid to help ensure he 
won close elections. In fact, Senator Reid repeatedly slipped and 
characterized this gentleman as the Democratic nominee several times 
here on the floor.
  This is our current Independent on the FEC?
  So I think we all know what kind of Independent fifth commissioner a 
Democratic President would select--one who would join with other 
Democrats and champion the campaigns of the left, while bringing waves 
of investigations, hearings, and subpoenas against their political 
opponents and punishing groups who dared to disagree.
  What is more, the Democratic Politician Protection Act would give the 
sitting President the chance to name the Chairperson of the FEC, 
abandoning the current practice of rotating Chairmen, and this person 
would get broad new powers, like the sole authority to issue subpoenas 
and to compel testimony and the ability to hire and fire the general 
counsel with just two more votes from just one party.
  So make no mistake, the Democrats are envisioning a hostile takeover 
of the body that regulates political speech, designed to tilt the 
playing field in their direction. Democrats claim this is necessary 
because the current structure is ``dysfunctional.''
  Well, let's look at some of the current dysfunction and where it is 
coming from. Let's look at the Democrat who currently serves as the FEC 
Chair. She has been a Commissioner for 16 years. In fact, her term 
ended 11 years ago, but she has been held over ever since, and now this 
seasoned veteran of the left's anti-speech crusade has announced that 
she will bar the FEC's attorneys from defending the Commission when 
liberal watchdogs come after it in court.
  By unilaterally withholding her vote, she plans to make the FEC 
essentially forfeit its legal fights against liberal groups by simply 
not showing up. So the defendants in these matters would be out of luck 
unless they happen to have the financial means to keep up their own 
defense.
  This Democrat Commissioner has also indicated that if this trick 
doesn't produce the political outcome she is after, she is willing to 
simply ignore subsequent court orders altogether. This is a current 
member of the FEC.
  So House Democrats are lecturing about dysfunction at the FEC, but it 
is their ally who is now using her vote to tie the FEC's hands behind 
its back.
  Democrats and their allies claim Republicans are keeping the FEC from 
enforcing campaign finance laws. That is their talking point for all of 
these radical changes. But let's take a look at who is really refusing 
to work within the law. The Democratic Chairwoman says she will keep 
the FEC from defending itself and is threatening to disobey court 
orders. That is my definition of dysfunction.
  Democrats aren't after an FEC that enforces the law. They want an FEC 
that advances their particular ideology. These current words and these 
current antics prove it, and the Democratic politician protection act 
would make it much, much worse.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________