BetaFEC
beta.fec.gov
beta.fec.gov
To more important matters: what about stopping the flow of corporate and foreign money into our elections? What about shutting down Super PACs or making their info transparent? What about enshrining publicly funded elections?
Given all those recent studies/reports that claim the USA is an oligarchy and average citizens have no real impact on the direction of policy, why should we care about a shiny new website? We vote, but the votes don't matter anyway.
It doesn't change that we are re-painting the house when the roof is collapsing.
"Yet despite disclosure rules, it is possible to spend money without voters knowing the identities of donors before the election.[36] In federal elections, for example, political action committees have the option to choose to file reports on a "monthly" or "quarterly" basis.[37][38][39] This allows funds raised by PACs in the final days of the election to be spent and votes cast before the report is due."
It matters. Transparency that is deferred until after the decision point of an election means that the potential for change is torpedoed for at least a few years each time. I very much agree that we are better off with any information we can get, but trying to eke democracy out of election forensics is going to be extremely tough.
cryoshon is addressing the elephant in the room. Anybody who downvotes his/her posts is unwilling to address the elephant in the room.
This is an important topic which warrants further discussion.
This website has nothing to do with the infighting between political parties, it's about giving citizens the actual data. Change will come not from the FEC magically agreeing on anything, but from people finding out where the money is going and voting for people who vow to change it. This is literally the best the FEC can do!
So even though we have a nice new site, it's a waste since the outcome is the same.
As far as what the FEC can do which might have an actual impact: the heads of the federal agencies can access the bully pulpit if they choose to, but typically their leaders are selected for pliability rather than assertiveness. I believe relatively recently the head of the SEC came out and told the media that they don't have enough resources to enforce their regulations in any capacity, which made quite a stir at the time and likely lead to funding for their more recent attempts to build high profile cases.
I think people give up too easily when they come to believe the problem might last longer than their lifetime.
[0] http://www.harpers.org/blog/2008/06/weber-on-the-political-v...