An interview with MATC’s Dr. Maurice Sheppard
Elections and leadership
Elections and leadership
And a look at the FEC shows that it isn’t your typical commission. “The structure of the FEC is odd because the commission has an even number of seats,”
Sheppard said. “It has three Democrats and three Republicans. So you could always end up in a stalemate. Every other commission has an odd number so you
can actually do something, yea or nay.”
And instead of being in the thick of the action — there were no immediate rulings this past election when questions were raised over the source of some of
the funds that the Obama campaign received over the Internet — its rulings are slow. "Different regulatory agencies have different types of enforcement,”
Sheppard said. “Some have what I would call actual enforcement like the IRS. If they catch you cheating on your taxes, they can actually fine you and put you
in jail. But an agency like the FEC has enforcement power that is much more symbolic. There was one case against George H.W. Bush when he was running for
re-election against Bill Clinton. It concerned election fraud. It took the FEC three years to make a decision in that case. It was almost into the second term of
the Clinton administration. Some people refer to the FEC as the watchdog that doesn’t bark. It rarely hands down heavy fines against anyone. There’s rarely any
actual punishment. Its purpose is symbolic. It symbolizes that the government understands that the integrity of the campaign finance system is important for
democracy.”
In other words, it gives the appearance that something is being done about campaign finance, but in reality, relatively little is done about it on a timely
basis.
With major flaws were uncovered in Florida during the 2000 election, Congress didn’t turn to the Federal Election Commission to reform the electoral
administration system. Through the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA), they set up the Federal Election Assistance Commission (FEAC). “Their job is to set up
clear standards regarding election administration,” Sheppard said. “Several things came out of HAVA. One, it created this new commission and that new
commission established new guidelines in terms of voting and election administration. This gets tricky because now you get into the concept of federalism
where states and local government want to have control over what the ballot looks like, the types of voting machines that they use and that sort of thing.”
One of the lasting images out of Florida in 2000 was people inspecting the hanging chads produced by punch hole voting machines that were not necessarily
well-maintained. “What they found was some voting machines being used by some of the counties that had been purchased in the early 1970s,” Sheppard said.
“In some cases — I’m going to exaggerate just a little bit here — the machines hadn’t been cleaned since the 1970s. With some punch card machines and
people punching holes in the paper and the chads are just stacking up year after year and no one was cleaning them out.”
Through a system of funding and the provision of materials, the federal government sought to raise the standards of election administration throughout the
country, although it was the states’ prerogative on how much they would implement of the new federal standards. Participation was, for the most part, voluntary.
Wisconsin’s Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, tried to use the voluntary standards of HAVA to force Wisconsin to look at its voter lists just a few weeks before the
election. “My view is that the Attorney General’s actions were inappropriate,” Sheppard said. “He tried to turn HAVA from the pen into the sword, which is not the
intent. There is always that possibility of trying to take HAVA and actually wielding it for political purposes, which is inconsistent with its intent.”
Next issue: Bush, Obama and leadership
Sheppard said. “It has three Democrats and three Republicans. So you could always end up in a stalemate. Every other commission has an odd number so you
can actually do something, yea or nay.”
And instead of being in the thick of the action — there were no immediate rulings this past election when questions were raised over the source of some of
the funds that the Obama campaign received over the Internet — its rulings are slow. "Different regulatory agencies have different types of enforcement,”
Sheppard said. “Some have what I would call actual enforcement like the IRS. If they catch you cheating on your taxes, they can actually fine you and put you
in jail. But an agency like the FEC has enforcement power that is much more symbolic. There was one case against George H.W. Bush when he was running for
re-election against Bill Clinton. It concerned election fraud. It took the FEC three years to make a decision in that case. It was almost into the second term of
the Clinton administration. Some people refer to the FEC as the watchdog that doesn’t bark. It rarely hands down heavy fines against anyone. There’s rarely any
actual punishment. Its purpose is symbolic. It symbolizes that the government understands that the integrity of the campaign finance system is important for
democracy.”
In other words, it gives the appearance that something is being done about campaign finance, but in reality, relatively little is done about it on a timely
basis.
With major flaws were uncovered in Florida during the 2000 election, Congress didn’t turn to the Federal Election Commission to reform the electoral
administration system. Through the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA), they set up the Federal Election Assistance Commission (FEAC). “Their job is to set up
clear standards regarding election administration,” Sheppard said. “Several things came out of HAVA. One, it created this new commission and that new
commission established new guidelines in terms of voting and election administration. This gets tricky because now you get into the concept of federalism
where states and local government want to have control over what the ballot looks like, the types of voting machines that they use and that sort of thing.”
One of the lasting images out of Florida in 2000 was people inspecting the hanging chads produced by punch hole voting machines that were not necessarily
well-maintained. “What they found was some voting machines being used by some of the counties that had been purchased in the early 1970s,” Sheppard said.
“In some cases — I’m going to exaggerate just a little bit here — the machines hadn’t been cleaned since the 1970s. With some punch card machines and
people punching holes in the paper and the chads are just stacking up year after year and no one was cleaning them out.”
Through a system of funding and the provision of materials, the federal government sought to raise the standards of election administration throughout the
country, although it was the states’ prerogative on how much they would implement of the new federal standards. Participation was, for the most part, voluntary.
Wisconsin’s Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen, tried to use the voluntary standards of HAVA to force Wisconsin to look at its voter lists just a few weeks before the
election. “My view is that the Attorney General’s actions were inappropriate,” Sheppard said. “He tried to turn HAVA from the pen into the sword, which is not the
intent. There is always that possibility of trying to take HAVA and actually wielding it for political purposes, which is inconsistent with its intent.”
Next issue: Bush, Obama and leadership
By Jonathan Gramling
Part 1 of 2
Come election time, regardless of whether or not someone is making history, scholars of the
American political process always get excited and always see things that the general public is not
aware. One of those scholars is Dr. Maurice Sheppard, a professor of political science at MATC.
Sheppard is fascinated by the electoral process. He wrote “The Federal Election Commission: An
Analysis of Democracy, Policy, and Administration” several years ago because he is fascinated by
elections, what governs them and what kind of leaders are attracted to the political process.
In Sheppard’s view, the Federal Election Commission, created to be the watchdog on campaign
finance, is more symbolic than regulatory. “One of the challenges for the FEC is that it is supposed to
be the watchdog over the very people — members of Congress and the President — that actually
created it and funds it,” Sheppard said. “It is the classical case of the fox watching the hen house.”
Part 1 of 2
Come election time, regardless of whether or not someone is making history, scholars of the
American political process always get excited and always see things that the general public is not
aware. One of those scholars is Dr. Maurice Sheppard, a professor of political science at MATC.
Sheppard is fascinated by the electoral process. He wrote “The Federal Election Commission: An
Analysis of Democracy, Policy, and Administration” several years ago because he is fascinated by
elections, what governs them and what kind of leaders are attracted to the political process.
In Sheppard’s view, the Federal Election Commission, created to be the watchdog on campaign
finance, is more symbolic than regulatory. “One of the challenges for the FEC is that it is supposed to
be the watchdog over the very people — members of Congress and the President — that actually
created it and funds it,” Sheppard said. “It is the classical case of the fox watching the hen house.”
Dr. Maurice Sheppard is a professor of political
science at MATC
science at MATC
