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

A person signing a piece of paper with other people around them.

Javon Jackson, center, was able to register to vote following passage of a 2019 Nevada law that restored voting rights to formerly incarcerated individuals.

The Nation Is Missing Millions of Voters Due to Lack of Rights for Former Felons

If you gathered every American with a prison record into one contiguous territory and admitted it to the union, you would create the 12th-largest state. It would be home to at least 7 million to 8 million people and hold a dozen votes in the Electoral College.

In a close presidential race, this hypothetical state of the formerly incarcerated could decide who wins the White House.

Keep ReadingShow less
People standing at voting booths.

The proposed SAVE Act and MEGA Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote, risking the disenfranchisement of millions of eligible Americans.

Getty Images, EvgeniyShkolenko

The SAVE Act is a Solution in Search of A Problem

The federal government seems to be barreling toward a federal election power grab. Trump's State of the Union address called for the Senate to push through the SAVE Act, which has already passed the House, in the name of so-called "election integrity." And the SAVE Act isn’t the only such bill. Like the SAVE Act, the Make Elections Great Again (MEGA) Act—introduced in the House—would require voters to provide a document outlined in the Act that allegedly proves their U.S. citizenship. We’ve been down this road before in Texas, and spoiler alert: it was unworkable.

Both the SAVE and MEGA Acts would disenfranchise millions of eligible U.S. citizens without making our federal elections more secure. They seek to roll out a faulty federal voter registration system, despite the existing separate registration and voting process for state and local elections. And these Acts target a minuscule “problem”—but would unleash mass voter purges and confusion.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stickers with the words "I Voted Today."

Virginia is on its way to be the 19th jurisdiction to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, bringing the U.S. closer to electing presidents by the national popular vote.

Getty Images, EyeWolf

Virginia On The Path to Join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

NPVIC is an agreement among U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the overall popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. It is considered a pragmatic, voluntary state-based initiative because it aims to ensure the winner of the national popular vote wins the presidency without requiring a constitutional amendment, operating instead within the existing Electoral College framework by utilizing states' constitutional authority to appoint electors. If enough states join the NPVIC to reach a total of 270 electoral votes, the United States will effectively shift from a winner-take-all (WTA) regime to a national popular vote system for electing the President.

With Virginia's adoption, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact will be adopted by eighteen states and the District of Columbia, collectively holding 222 electoral votes. The compact requires 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 total) to take effect. It currently needs forty-eight more electoral votes to become active.

Keep ReadingShow less
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