The use of a farm analogies by a newspaper in one of the largest cities in the world aside (I doubt if the editors of the NY Times have ever been to a real working farm), what makes these jokers any good at deciding who should serve on the FEC?
Before continuing, my head hurts with all the metaphors used by the editors in this piece. I urge the NY Time editors, one or two metaphors per editorial. No more.
Now to the substance. I don't know about the records of these so-called "professional regulators," but what makes them such likely candidates? I will say this about Illinois campaign finance law--it doesn't look much like federal law. First, the state's regime is based on a full-disclosure model. Sounds good right--but McCain needs to do a little research--there are no limits in Illinois. That's right--no limits on campaign contributions. Sure the candidate has to disclose everything, but they can take as much money from individuals and groups as they can.
Second, professional regulators have never actually run a PAC, campaign or filled out a compliance filing (if they have, they are not professional regulators). See the Skeptic's Eye for her list of qualifications of future commissioners.
by the way, any regulator who gets paid to do their job is a professional regulator--that is the definition of professional--being paid. The current Commissioners are professional regulators. Just being a professional does not guarantee you will do a good job!!
Defoxing the Chicken Coop - New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment