Ann Ravel is the chairwoman of the Federal Election Commission.
You have previously described the Federal Election Commission (FEC) as “worse than dysfunctional.” Do you think dysfunction is inherent to its structure, or is the dysfunction a new development?
Many people, including one of my fellow commissioners, have said that dysfunction is inherent in the Commission, and that was the intention of the members of Congress who voted in favor of establishing the Commission — to deadlock it. I do not believe that is true…Commissioners who actually believe in the mission of the agency and are willing to follow the law as it is written have been able to cross the aisle and provide four votes to investigate, enact regulations, and to give advice to people who requested it. Now, because of what I believe to be ideological differences, there are very few instances in which we don’t deadlock.
When you arrived at the FEC in October 2013, were you surprised by what you encountered?
I was stupefied. I had heard that the FEC was dysfunctional, but what I read prior to arriving was that there were personality differences between a couple of the commissioners, and it manifested itself in open bickering and fighting at Commission meetings. Having come from California and having had members of my Commission who were Republicans…I did not feel that it would be difficult for me to cross party lines and to achieve consensus on some matters. I really did not appreciate how ingrained the ideological problems are.
What are the implications of the FEC’s current ideological gridlock?
When there’s a 3-3 split on an advisory opinion or on an enforcement matter…essentially nothing happens…What is happening to some degree in the campaigns now is that the candidates and the lawyers who represent and advise them are essentially saying that it is appropriate to take the risk that a particular way of doing business is illegal, because the likelihood that there will be any enforcement is so small. That is the real problem with this situation. I have to say I’ve had conversations with people [in which they’ve said] my publicizing of the problem has caused some clients to say, “Well, I know nothing is going to be enforced because Ann Ravel said so.” I had to weigh that when I publicized the gridlock problem. But most lawyers knew it, and candidates knew it…I feel like it is my obligation to tell the American public about an agency that is of such importance to them and how it is not performing the function it was intended to perform.
Once you realized the extent of the persistent deadlock, did your game plan change? How did you adapt to the structural constraints you encountered?
I did have to modify my game plan. I thought that I was going to be able to go and work within the organization to achieve some of the things that I think are particularly important — such as disclosure — to maybe move the ball forward on other transparency issues…But I realized very quickly that while I did spend a significant amount of time trying to cross over and vote with the Republicans…There was never going to be a situation in which the Republican caucus was going to agree to vote with me on issues that I think are significant.
Many have projected that the 2016 election is going to be the most expensive in history. Are you surprised, given how much attention campaign finance has received recently, that neither Congress nor the White House has stepped in to try to reform the FEC?
The interest of the election lawyers who are representing all of the political actors in town — as well the political actors themselves — is to keep themselves in office…and to have their party become the party that is in leadership, in both Congress and in the White House…What they’re interested in is the ability to raise as much as they can. I’m not sure that there is a real burning interest to reform the system and make sure that it is operating as it was intended…But it is heartening to see that it has at least become an issue in this campaign and to see the number of people who are talking about it on both sides of the aisle as a significant issue.
You have been vocal about the underrepresentation of women in politics. Do you think that our current federal campaign finance system helps or hurts women seeking political office?
Super PACs that are associated with candidates…are somewhere between 80 and 90 percent run by white males, and they do not tend to give money to women. That is an example of the problems that women face in trying to be competitive in campaigns. Women, from what I have read…when they actually decide to run…have to spend a whole lot more time and energy to get the same amount of money [as men]. But if they have the same amount of money, then they usually are successful as candidates…I was talking recently to Janet Napolitano, who was the Governor of Arizona, and she told me that she believes that the only reason she was able to win as governor was a public financing system, and otherwise it would not have been possible for her to raise enough money, because she didn’t have access to the big donors.
What do you think the future of the FEC is?
I think the FEC will remain as dysfunctional as it is…Unless the president does something about it. Unless the president is willing to try to make a change in the way that the appointments are done…It seems like Congress will continue to be as polarized as always…And so, if the appointments process and the people at the Commission remain as they are, there is not going to be any change. There can’t be any change.
So you don’t expect campaign finance laws to be enforced anytime soon?
I don’t think there’s any question that the laws aren’t going to be enforced.