Good morning. Thank you all for being here. I look forward to this morning’s hearing to conduct oversight of the Federal Election Commission. We have with us the Chairman of the Commission, Brad Smith, and the Vice-Chairman, Ellen Weintraub. Also with us are Senators McCain and Feingold as well as a panel of expert campaign finance practitioners.

I want to start out today’s oversight hearing by asking one simple question: Is the FEC doing its job?

It’s been a long time since this Committee has held an oversight hearing on the FEC. In fact, it’s been nearly 6 ½ years -- March 25, 1998 to be exact. And that 1998 hearing only lasted barely a half hour. An oversight hearing of this type is overdue.

The purpose of this oversight hearing is not to point fingers, lay blame or shout insults. My purpose today is to ask some tough questions and get to the bottom of what’s going on over at the FEC. Quite frankly, I’m concerned. I read the newspapers and can’t figure out what exactly the FEC is doing lately. But I believe that our good panelists here today can help me out.

Since the last oversight hearing in 1998, the campaign finance and election law landscape has changed dramatically. Since 1990, the FEC’s budget has skyrocketed from about $15 million to more than $52 today – a 341% percent increase. The number of full-time employees has also dramatically increased in that period of time -- from 242 to 391 -- a 61% percent increase. I’m interested to hear why the FEC has necessitated such large increases in manpower and money.

One issue that was discussed at the last oversight hearing and still needs to be discussed today is the way in which the FEC does, or in some cases, does not, handle its enforcement duties. It seems like there is too much delay. According to the FEC’s own records, many enforcement cases take years to resolve. Many cases from the 1990’s were just resolved within the last few years, and many more are still pending. I want to know why. If campaign abuses occur immediately before an election, what good is it to resolve the abuses after the election has already happened? Can’t something be done more quickly?

Last year, the FEC held a hearing focusing on the enforcement process and how that process could be improved. I’m curious to hear from the Commissioners what, if anything, they have done since that hearing to improve the enforcement process. I want to know why the enforcement process operates in such a one-sided manner. By all accounts, the FEC plays a bizarre multi-faceted role. They act as prosecutor, judge, and jury. The Commissioners decide which cases go forward. They decide whether or not there is a reason to believe a violation has occurred. They decide probable cause and how to conciliate the matter. And all the while, the respondent never gets to stand before the Commission and directly tell his side of the story. Such a process seems to be at odds with any conceivable notion of due process.

The relationship between the FEC and this Committee is rather unique. We are responsible for regulating one another. Many people have charged that the way the FEC operates is our fault. People say Members of Congress wanted the FEC to be a big barking dog with no bite. Well, I was a member of Congress when the FEC was established. I can tell you that the intention, at that time, was to stop abuses like those which occurred during the Watergate era. And thankfully, those abuses have largely gone away.

I understand you have a difficult job to do. But my concern is that the job gets done. Lately, all I’ve heard is that the FEC is side-stepping the tough issues. For example, the FEC had a prime opportunity to deal with the 527 issue a couple of months ago and the agency simply punted. Just a few weeks ago, the issue of documentary films and the media exemption came up for discussion and the FEC did nothing. It seems that would have been the perfect opportunity to deal with the media exemption and the documentary film issue (i.e.“Fahrenheit 9-11,”). In fact, Vice Chairman Weintraub said, “This doesn’t mean anything for [people like] Michael Moore, -- we specifically avoided making any ruling on the media exemption.” It seems that the new FEC motto is, “Why do today what you can put off until next year?”

I believe there’s a simple solution to alleviating the gridlock that seems to paralyze the FEC on controversial issues. Instead of six members, there ought to be five. That will guarantee a result in every case. That’s the way the FCC, SEC, and FTC operate – those agencies all have five members. Why not the FEC?

My other concerns here today are these: 1) What is the FEC doing with that $52++ million dollar budget? 2) What is the FEC doing right now to improve its enforcement processes? 3) Why is the FEC “begging off” on the tough issues? 4) What can Congress do to help you do your job better? I look forward to getting answers to these questions from our witnesses.

###