And by contributions to your pbs station by viewers like you, thank you. Ann ravel was appointed to the federal Election Commission by president barack obama with unanimous consent. She stepped down in march and sounded a loud and blunt alarm producing a final report outlining the gridlock that has frozen the fec. The title of the report makes clear her discontent. I love this. Dysfunction and deadlock, the crisis at the federal elections reveals the unlikely hood of draining the swamp. How is that for a title . Ann, good to have you on the program. Thank you, good to be here. I pulled this one paragraph from your reported that i think gives a pretty good sense of what is wrong with the fec and speaks, of course, to what is wrong with our elections at large. I might ask you to read your words to start the conversation . Happy to do so, thank you. Public should know about fecs failures. The commission made up of six commissioners is not performing its duty. A block of three commissioners routinely thwart, up front laws they were lekted to administer. Major violations are swept under the rug, and the resulting dark money has left americans uninformed about the sources of campaign spending. The commissions work is essential to the integrity and fairness of the political process and to ensure public trust in government. As the fec explains on their website, Campaign Finance laws seeks to limit the disproportionate influence of wealthy individuals and special Interest Groups in the outcome of federal elections. To regulate spending in campaigns for federal office, and deter abuses by mandating Public Disclosure of Campaign Finances. This incredibly significant commission is not performing the job that congress intended. And violators of the law are given a free pass. Four vote requirements is unchecked veto power to delay and dismiss flagrant violations, impose significantly lower penalties, and leave major cases without resolution. Thank you for reading that. I wanted you to read it because i thought the audience might appreciate hearing a piece of what was in your report. What struck me about this was how a sitting member of the federal Election Commission could have any sort of antipathy towards Campaign Finance law. That is what youre there to do and yet these members are reporting, they thwart the law that they were worn to up hold and protect. How is that possible . It is an important point. It is shocking that people who take jobs, that theyre supposed to fulfill on behalf of the American Public, they dont believe in those laws. They dont believe in the very mission of the agency. It is all for either ideological or political purposes. They sit there to eviscerate the agency. So what is the point of having the fec . I think the fec is a really important agency. And it should be an agency and it should have a robust agency that gives people confidence that the law is fairly enforced. Thats why it was there. It was established when the American Public was so unhappy about Campaign Finance violations that were against the law, but there was no enforce ment agency. So it is meant to enforce the law and do all of the things that i read to you that are on our website. So it is important to continue that. So what kind im just asking, what kind of violations are going unchecked, unregulated, what is happening here . That is important, too. Some violations, really minor violations against small committees, who make mistakes, those are being enforced. But the really important ones, the ones that are important and have been important to the president ial campaign, for example, like undisclosed dark money. Like groups that are setting up l. L. C. S just a funnel money through it. But have no accountability, all of those group thats are doing those things are not being even investigated. Other really serious problems, where Campaign Money that is coming from foreign sources, that is not being enforced, and the commission deadlocks on whether or not to even do regulations about it. So it is kind of stunning and those are things really important. So the big game is getting away and going after the little guy as always. Absolutely. So it is a desperate treatment, clearly, that also causes people to know, the big campaign violators, to know they can flagrantely violate the law. There have been election lawyers in dc always there representing candidates and committees for some of the major candidates, so say it is basically like the wild west, and fie nant laws are not being enforced. They know they can stretch or absolutely violate the law. As many times on this program and young, and i know this, it hit me in a different way. We talk about this as united, and the typical line is that it allowed unfettered money to come into campaigns from inside or outside of the country. Anything goes, basically, is what Citizens United said. What we talk about in your report is why the Supreme Court got behind that ruling. They then ruled that way because it was their sense, their statement, part of their ruling, that we could have money come in at all levels because there was robust reporting on where that money was coming from. I will let you explain that more. As crazy as the ruling was, there was at least an argument to me. What the court said was that because the money was being given that they spoke about, which is independent expenditures that are independent of the candidates allegedly not only is the protection that it is independent, because it cannot cause corruption, said the court, but also there is immediate, on the internet, disclosure. So the American Public knows who is behind the campaigns, they can eliminate corruption if there is any, and there will be an ability to vote according to their view. We know that is not true. In the last few years since Citizens United, there has been more than 800 million of unknown dark money that has been in our elections. And it is probably more than that because it is dark money. So we dont know, really how much there is. But if there was a ruling that it could be there, how is that robust reporting of it on the internet not taking place. Its not taking place because the federal Election Commission is stalemated on the issue. So when these groups, 501c 4, 56s, or as we talked about the limited Liability Corporations that are giving money, and most of that money is for political purposes, and we had a number of them like that, that over 50 , in some cases close to 97 of the money they spent, was for political campaigns. They have refused to enforce, or investigate. But i guess, im not naive, im asking the law says the money must be reported or not. Why is there a stalemate about whether or not the money ought to be reported . There is a little bit of a hoop. Because when a group like, say crossroads gps, which is one of the ones in the report. When they make political expenditures, their not giving it to the candidates, theyre giving it to ads. They will air ads on television that say, you know, president obama and his terrible obama care was supported by x candidate, you know, and it is just horrible for the country. They will say that is an issue ad, not a campaign ad, when they say on their irs form or other forms that all of the money on the fec forms where they buy the ads that they are for a candidate or against a candidate. But the commissioners say no, those are issue ads, theyre just talking about obama care. That is not really a stalemate, there is another word for it. Correct, believe me, it is insanity. Anyway. How much of this is congresss fault . How much tof is the executive branchs fault that we dont put teeth in to the fec . That is a really good question. In my tenure, i was appointed by president obama. People were disappointed he didnt do more about Campaign Finance, but the president has very little power. He appointed me, she spoke about Campaign Finance and Citizens United many times. It is continues job to do things like enact law thats are so clear in terms of reporting requirements that the fec could not get away with making those false arguments about things. So the law could be clearer, itself is dysfunctional and cannot do but it seems to me that congress doesnt want the fec to have more teeth because these are laws, rules, and regulations they would then have to live by. Zrp. That is one way to look at it, but over the years the fec has functioned even though it didnt have a lot of teeth, and it was always no more than three of one political party. But it functioned and people believed in the law. What congress has done is they purposely appointed three commissioners they knew were going to always vote as a block, and since four votes are required, they could essentially stalemate the agency and eliminate its purpose. Mitch mcconnell viewed his appointees as following in his viewpoints which are, and he said this publicly, he said does not believe in Campaign Finance and does not believe in disclosure. How then, since you suggested the agency itself, how do the people that work in the agency do their work . How do they view the fact that they have bosses that cant agree on anything. How do you an advance a cause where you dont have the authority or the leadership to do what the American People think youre doing . For the employees, the wonderful flows that worked at the fec. They are nonpartisan. They came in committed to the work and they did their jobs. But admittedly, it was difficult and frustrating for them, it was and is and the fec has one of the lowest ratings for moral for agency, i think it was the low est for small agencies. That must be tough. It is terrible for the employees. They work up these cases, they make recommendations that the cases be enforced, or at least investigated, and it never happens. But even worse than that, another one of the stack ticks of the commissioners is to berate the employees, the lawyers, making these recommendations, and to allege theyre partisan, and to act as if theyre cross examining them. I heard that prior to my coming on. Some of them would leave the room crying because they were so abused. And that is part of the tactic. Let me press back respectively. I agree with your assessment there is precious little that barack obama could have done or any president could do to address these issues save appointing commissioners there to really do their jobs. Thats one thing they could do. Not putting on people there to block and stalemate. But what disappointed me about barack obama, here is my issue. The one issue he had been consistent for his entire career, was Campaign Finance reform he was also really good on that issue. And there are a lot of people as you well know, he may not have been able to do something, but he could lead by example. When mitt romney took that money, and the president did a 180, a lot of people were disappointed that he did not lead by example. He had so much money anyway. He raised nobody has raised more from small donors and he didnt have to do that. I agree with your point entirely. One of the problems that we see now is, as you know, its 1 of 1 of the population that give more than 200 in campaigns, and therefore they are the ones and its just a really small number that give most of the money to fund campaigns. And so people who are the small, the really small donors and others, feel powerless in our system. And i think that one of the ways to combat that is to have more matching funds and financing and the fact that the president ial funding Financial System was eviscerated because it was too hard not to take the money and if no one else takes it the amount of money that blooms in campaigns is a problem. One of my views about that is what Congress Needs to do is nix that fund. They have to make it more competitive. Helps people run without doing what youre saying president obama did. What then as a federal election official do you think he paid off. Was that encouraging for you . I think it is encouraging he was able to get more people excited and more involved in the campaign and give small amounts of money. That is encouraging. But Bernie Sanders also took a lot of money from bigger donors as well. Which, you know, it is not the total amount of money in campaigns that is the problem, because frankly is costs a lot of money to run a campaign, especially a president ial campaign. What level of indictment are you prepared to lay on the media for their greed, for their complicity, my word, not yours. Talk about how you see the media in this game. The Media Outlets made a boat load of money and it drives so much of this stuff youre talking about. I think it is the media and the fact that the media raises prices, and can sort of corner the market for for campaigns. And there is an indictment for them, for the consultants that work with candidates, so there is a Campaign Finance industry that surrounds these campaigns. I think we have a new world coming. A lot of campaigns and ads are moving to the internet. Cable tv will still be a place for them, but the predictions are, by a lot of campaign consul tants thats its facebook, twitter, internet. Is that good or bad . What worries me about it is that it is exempt from pretty much any regulation now, and not that we have to regulate, but i think we have to figure out how to give the public the investigation about information about who is behind the scene. What is left after the Supreme Court decision is disclosure. And people care about who is knowing who is behind campaigns. What scares me is not that you cant lie, but the internet is so unregulated, i wonder where the lies will go if your advertising on the internet. Youre just shifting the money from tv to the internet, but you will still follow the money. But there is no regulation o youre just shifting the money from tv to the internet, but you will still follow the money. But there is no regulation of anything on the internet so there is no way of knowing what is real, what is true. If i were seeing that already in the campaign that just ended. And there was a complaint filed with the fec on this, there are a number of scam groups on the internet, asking for money, saying they were Hillary Clintons campaign. None of the money went to Hillary Clinton and that is not uncommon. That is much more pervasive and people are more able to lie. Fake news is really just part and parcel of this. I have 30 seconds left. Is the only answer a constitutional amendment . No, i dont think that is going to be the answer. I think the answer is more citizen engagement. We need to get more people to understand how this impacts their lives, and so they have to be involved. Hopefully after tonight we can understand a little bitter. A rare interview with a former member of the fec. Thank you for coming on, thank you for e support. Thank you, my pleasure. Thank you for watching tonight as always. For more information on todays show go to tavissmiley. Com. Join me next time for conversations with staty patton about the consequences of spanking children and felicity huffman, well see you then. And by contributions to your pbs station by viewers like you. Thank you. Today on americas test kitchen, julia shows bridget how to make the best castiron steak, adam reviews papertowel holders with bridget in the equipment corner, and dan makes julia the ultimate crisproast butterflied chicken. Its all coming up right here on americas test kitchen. Americas test kitchen is brought to you by the following Fisher Paykel. Since 1934, Fisher Paykel has been designing