Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
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.

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

With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less