It seems to me that the FEC has (or ought to have) the authority, and the duty, to establish the eligibility for any and all candidates for federal office.
It is in everyone's interest to avoid this crap.
They could do it by requiring proof of eligibility (citizenship, age, non-feloniousness) at filing time.
Why do they not do this?
Because the big “0” is a crat.
Because of the way the electoral college works. There will not be one vote actually cast for Barack Obama until the electors vote some 6 weeks after the general election. Until then, we are only voting for electors, not for a particular candidate.
So the ultimate authority rests in Congress, which has to certify the result of the electoral college, and can challenge any result presented based on eligibility or process concerns (note that some BDS-suffering 'rats tried to do the latter after the 2004 elections).
That said, there's no reason Congress could not delegate its authority to the FEC through a more preemptive approach. Also, the individual states have the right to set qualifications and restrictions on electors, and they could likewise enact legislation that would require that a candidate whom electors are registering as pledged for must provide proof of eligibility.
Because, if I understand this correctly, the primaries and caucuses used to pick presidential nominees are solely responsible for vetting the candidates who run to be the nominee for their party. Money (campaign finances) and meeting filing deadlines (so the voters pamphlets and ballots can be printed) are two of the things the Feds and States are concerned about at that time. THEY DO NOT VET THE CANDIDATES - THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES DO THAT.
After the conventions then the gloves come off and it is bloody bar knuckles fighting combined with treasure hunting for the deepest secrets about the other candidate.
The FEC only does that to candidates that apply for gov funds.
Convenient, huh?
Once he is actually the nominee, it would appear that the Texas Secretary of State is REQUIRED by Law to establish his Bona Fides, under both Texas and Federal Law, BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT. The New York Secretary of State appears to have the same Legal Duty. Should they fail to do so, a Federal Writ of Mandamus could be used to compel them to do so.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/07/30/the-paper-trail-obamas-indonesian-background/
The FEC doesn't do much other than watch the money flow. The eligibility issue is left to the states.
The candidate has to apply to have his name on the ballot in each state. The application form probably has a statement where he affirms his eligibility. The govt probably assumes people are telling the truth and leaves it up to us citizens to show otherwise.
If the RATS nominate Obama, and he is later thrown off the ballot in a couple of key states, they would have a real problem on their hands. I assume they would talk him into stepping down.
At this point, I still expect him to be the nominee. If it really is true that he became an Indonesian citizen, the RATS will still have a problem.