Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

With FEC impotent, advocacy group asks court to enforce campaign law

Don McGahn and Matthew Peterson, formerly of Federal Election Commission

Before he was White House counsel, Don McGahn was on the FEC in 2011 with Matthew Peterson, right. Peterson's departure this summer has left the commission without a quorum and unable to do business.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

If the Federal Election Commission can't get its act together, the Campaign Legal Center is going to take matters into its own hands.

The nonpartisan group, which advocates for tougher money-in-politics regulations, has filed a lawsuit asking a federal judge to take over a complaint it's submitted to the FEC.

That complaint is among more than 300 gathering dust at the agency's offices. That's because the FEC has been effectively shut down for more than six months, unable to conduct any oversight of the financing of 2020 presidential and congressional campaigns. Four commissioners have to be on the job for substantive business to get done, and there have been just three since Republican Matthew Petersen resigned at the end of August.


On Wednesday, the Senate scheduled a hearing for next week on the one person President Trump has picked for the commission: Trey Trainor, the assistant general counsel of the Texas GOP, whose nomination has been languishing for two years.

Until the Senate confirms him, however, the FEC may not:

  • Conduct meetings.
  • Determine violations of campaign finance laws and penalize the offenders.
  • Conduct routine audits of candidate campaign committees.
  • Open new investigations or rule on existing ones.
  • Issue advisory opinions when asked by candidates to clarify the intricacies of campaign finance law.

The scheduling of Trainor's hearing suggests that Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a committed campaign finance deregulator, has decided to reopen the FEC for the height of the political season — but in a way that assures it will be minimally active. Most actions require four votes, and the commission would be expected to deadlock 2-2 along party lines with Trainor on board.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Last September the CLC complained to the agency that a mysterious entity was violating election law by posting Facebook advertisements supporting Green Party candidates in five competitive House and Senate races. The advocacy group said it could find no information about the group that claimed to have created the ads, called American Progress Now.

In its lawsuit, filed last week, CLC notes that a provision in federal law permits the filing of such complaints in an effort to get a federal judge to order the FEC to act on a complaint. And if the agency does not — or, in this case, cannot — act within a certain period of time, the plaintiff is authorized to take the matter to the court and ask it to enforce campaign finance laws.

Getting a handle on digital political spending is particularly important now because this year's online campaign efforts are expected to be the most expensive in American history with an estimated $2.8 billion being spent, the CLC said.

"If nothing is done, the FEC will instead be sending a message that anonymous or fake entities like America Progress Now can pop into existence just prior to an election, exploit lax registration and reporting requirements by digital platforms, spend unlimited sums of money, and then disappear into thin air once an election is over," the group said.

Since neither party can hold more than three seats on the FEC, nominees are usually advanced in bipartisan pairs. Senate Democrats say their choice for a coupling with Trainor would be senior FEC attorney Shana Broussard, but she has not been nominated.

Since the three current commissioners are all serving well beyond their six-year terms, as the law allows, some campaign advocacy groups say that an entire slate of six new commissioners should be nominated, three from each party.

Read More

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less