In the period from about 1890 to 1920, labeled the Progressive Era, political thinkers, economists (a new profession then) and public intellectuals told Americans and Europeans that the best way to get efficient government that actually worked was to create independent boards, commissions and other similar organizations.  We were told they would be free from “politics,” staffed by experts and would run their area of authority without bias and for the good of all their constituents.  In addition, these commissions would be unelected, created by Congress (at the Federal level), but then operated without interference from the legislature.  Members would be appointed by the executive (president) for long terms without the power of removal by anyone.

Jump forward about 100 years to the Federal Election Commission, one of those Progressive Era kinds of public bodies, supposed to operate professionally and without political influence.  Yesterday, we read, three FEC members voted to hold Fox News accountable for something it did during the 2015 debate season.  The “offense” is related below, as reported by the Washington Examiner:

“At issue was the Aug. 6, 2015 Fox presidential debate. Initially, the network planned to host one debate featuring 10 candidates. But as the date got close and the nearly two dozen GOP presidential candidates were close in the polls, Fox added a second debate that included seven other candidates.  One of the candidates left out filed a complaint to the FEC, charging that Fox was essentially making a contribution to the 17 candidates by letting them have a voice in the debate.  CNN did the same thing, but there is no indication that they faced a complaint.” (June 29, 2016, reported by Paul Bedard)

The vote was taken in secret and would have punished Fox for what appears to be a perfectly legitimate action, certainly not falling under FEC jurisdiction.  In fact the vote ended 3-3, with the three Republicand voting against any action.  Otherwise this would have been a first, under, to say the least., a novel theory, that ” Fox News’ editorial decision to expand the debate from one debate to two debates, and to include 7 candidates in the undercard debate, constituted an illegal corporate contribution by Fox News to the candidates who participated in the debate.” (Ibid.)  Thankfully those Republican were present to vote.  But what does this say about the Progressive’s great idea from decades ago? 

First, it is utterly ridiculous to assert or believe that any governmental body can escape political pressures to act in a biased way against their opponents.  That is naïve to the extreme.  Human nature being what it is, no body can be expected to completely avoid some bias, especially against those with whom it disagrees.  That is why our Founders tried to write checks and balances—not just separation of powers—into the Constitution.  Suck checks would at least minimize the extent to which political motives could be used to abuse power.  But then Congress and state legislatures went about mucking things up in an overreaction to “boss politics” of the late nineteenth century.  Of course, they also were duped by academics to believe that experts knew better than the hoi polloi what was best and how to run things.  No small amount of elitism there, to be sure.  So we ended up with the SEC, FCC, FEC, CAB, ICC, (those last two thankfully now defunct), CSPC, CFPC (a new one), and on down the alphabet.  The same kind of mischief we saw with the FEC has already been seen on other such commissions and boards.  Just read the news. 

So should be go back to trusting the people more?  After all, the Progressives also helped push for direct election of Senators, and it succeeded.  And today we have a popularly elected body called the Senate that no one really trusts or likes, but whose members continue to be reelected.  What is a person to think?  Do we defer to the people or to unaccountable bodies?  The answer to this trick question is neither.  We do not defer to any governmental body.  We defer to a rule of law that expresses itself in the way governments are designed in order to minimize either popular delusion or expert elitism.  This rule of law is embodied first at the national level in the United States Constitution.  Of course if the Supreme Court had done its job it would have declared that all such public bodies represented an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power from Congress.  But alas, those days seem to be gone forever.

But that doesn’t mean all is lost.  There are movements in the right direction to restore constitutional fidelity, also to revive the non-delegation doctrine.  These will not succeed overnight.  Nor am I so naïve that I think they will definitely succeed at all.  But there is some hope.  Perhaps even the Supreme Court will rediscover some lost principles.  Finally, Christians should not stop praying for our government officials and for our nation.  God may see fit to send a revival of genuine Christian faith, and that can’t help but influence to some extent our overall level of virtue, even among politicians and government officials.  But until or unless that happens we must continue to urge that our institutions function as designed and that means in some cases advocating for change or even standing for office ourselves.