Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Enforcing money-in-politics rules is about to be left to you and me

Sen. Joni Ernst

The test case for citizens' ability to sue, when the Federal Election Commission does not act, involves a group working for the re-election of GOP Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa.

Stefani Reynolds/Getty Images

Here's how far the Federal Election Commission has sunk in failing to carry out its job of overseeing the rules of presidential and congressional campaign finance.

Barring a highly unlikely turn of events, a sort of line of shame will be crossed in three months: For the first time, responsibility for enforcing the laws regulating money in federal politics will essentially pass to the citizenry, sidelining the agency created to do the work.

The FEC has not had enough commissioners to do any substantive business for almost all the past year, a consequence of the partisan deadlock over campaign finance regulation. Odds are scant any new members will be confirmed until after January's inauguration. And right around then, a dispute will have been gathering dust for so long at the FEC that the case can be moved to federal court.


While FEC decisions can be appealed to federal judges, this looms as the first time in the agency's 46-year history when a campaign finance dispute would start at the courthouse.

The Campaign Legal Center, a money-in-politics watchdog, filed a complaint against a political nonprofit called Iowa Values, which has helped promote the re-election campaign of Republican Sen. Joni Ernst. The CLC believes the organization has violated federal campaign finance law by not registering with the FEC and not filing regular reports showing who has donated to the group and how those funds are being spent. Others have complained that Ernst's campaign has illegally coordinated its efforts with the so-called dark money group.The group filed papers with the FEC in December asking for an investigation. But no action has ever been taken, because it takes four commissioners to consider the matter and there have been only three on the job for 12 of the past 13 months.

Last week, a federal judge invoked a wrinkle in federal law providing that, if the FEC sits on its hands and doesn't do its job for long enough, private individuals have the power to pursue alleged campaign finance scofflaws through the courts. In what's termed a default judgment, Judge Royce Lamberth told the agency to do something with the case by Jan. 12 — or else stand aside as the CLC takes Iowa Values to court on its own.

"It's really unfortunate that we are weeks away from a federal election and the agency tasked with oversight of campaign finance laws lacks a quorum to do its job," said CLC attorney Erin Chlopak, who is handling the Iowa Values lawsuit.

Previously, the private cause of action provision in federal law has been invoked by groups that filed complaints with the FEC and were not happy with its decision, which over the past decade has more often than not been to dismiss the matter.

The case took a strange twist two days after the judge's ruling, when the Justice Department asked Lamberth to reverse himself and dismiss the case on the grounds the watchdog group lacks legal standing to sue. What makes the filing strange is that the FEC is an independent agency with its own legal staff, and Justice attorneys admitted in their filing that they don't represent the FEC.

"It is notable that DOJ is inserting itself into this lawsuit, the underlying allegations of which concern apparent campaign finance violations by a political ally of the president," said Chlopak.

Ernst has been a stalwart ally of President Trump. She's in a tossup fight for a second term against Democratic businesswoman Theresa Greenfield. Even if she loses, the importance of the case to the cause of campaign finance regulation will not fade.

The Campaign Legal Center has filed three other federal lawsuits this year hoping to push the FEC to act on its complaints. A judge is expected to rule soon in the group's favor in one of them. Brought two years ago, it alleges that a group called the 45Committee spent $22 million on advertising, consultants and other expenses in support of Donald Trump and attacking Hillary Clinton in the last presidential campaign without registering as a political committee and reporting its donors and spending.

The FEC also has not taken action on a complaint filed in 2015 regarding the Right to Rise Super PAC, established to support then-Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida's presidential bid. The lawsuit in that case says the "prolonged inaction has fostered a Wild West atmosphere in the financing of campaigns for federal office allowing wealthy donors, including corporations and unions, to sidestep (federal election law) contribution limits and disclosure requirements."

Trey Trainor, who joined the FEC this spring as Trump's lone nominee, issued a lengthy statement in August on the "dangers of procedural dysfunction" at the agency, in which he argued that the attempts by CLC and other groups to bring private actions were an unwelcome development.

"A dangerous paradigm shift is happening in federal campaign finance law that is threatening Americans' free speech rights," he wrote. "Outside groups," he said, "are "seeking private enforcement of the federal campaign finance laws and using the courts to get their preferred policy positions enacted."

The FEC has not had a full complement of members since March 2017. It did not have the four needed for a quorum between August 2019 and May, when the Senate confirmed Trainor. But a week after the first meeting in months, in June, Commissioner Caroline Hunter resigned and the panel was shorthanded again.

Trump immediately promised to nominate conservative attorney Allen Dickerson as her replacement, but the Senate did not even receive the paperwork until last month. No hearing has been scheduled, and Democrats have vowed to do what they can to stall confirmation unless nominees to fill the other vacancies are forwarded as well.

In the meantime, several hundred unresolved complaints of campaign finance law violations continue to pile up in FEC offices.


Read More

An illustration of the U.S. flag on the shape of the U.S. with blue and red figures of people across it.

Every state has its own constitution.

How State Constitutions Became the Battleground for American Rights and Liberties – on Both the Left and Right

Beyond picking governors, state legislators, local officials and representatives to serve in Congress, voters in almost every state this year will have the opportunity to amend the language of their state constitution. In one state, they could potentially rewrite the constitution altogether.

Though the U.S. Constitution is rarely amended, voters frequently amend their state constitutions. In every election cycle, voters are asked to ratify constitutional amendments.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protestors holding signs at a rally, one reads, "Trump is not above the law."

Protesters gather at a Nobody Is Above the Law rally protesting President Trump's interference in the Mueller investigation on November 08, 2018 in Washington, DC.

Larry French/Getty Images

The Double Standard Presidency: When We Watch Leaders Act Above the Law

Americans are told that no one is above the law. Yet every day, they watch a president behave in ways that would get any ordinary citizen fired, disciplined, confronted, or held accountable — and they watch some Americans excuse it. What makes this moment even more striking is that critics across the political spectrum, including conservatives, now warn that the presidency is operating on a dangerous double standard. This is not a partisan concern. It is a constitutional one. And it is tearing at the fabric of our democracy.

For generations, the Constitution has provided guardrails — separation of powers, checks and balances, oversight mechanisms, and limits on executive authority — designed to prevent any leader from functioning above the law. The framers feared concentrated power more than anything else. They believed that the presidency must be constrained not only by written law but by norms of restraint, dignity, and respect for institutions. Those norms held for centuries because presidents understood that the office was larger than any individual, and Congress understood that oversight was not optional.

Keep ReadingShow less
Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Study Reveals Sharp Generational Divide in How Latino Identity Influences Daily Life

Latino immigrants and U.S.-born Latinos differ sharply in how much their identity shapes their daily lives, according to recent findings from the Pew Research Center’s 2025 National Survey of Latinos. The survey shows that Latino immigrants are far more likely than U.S.-born Latinos to say their identity is central to who they are, and that it influences their experiences in the United States. Pew researchers Gabriel Piña, Mark Hugo Lopez, Sahana Mukherjee, Dalia Fahmy, and Alexandra Cahn report that the divide reflects differences in cultural connection, lived experience, and generational distance from immigrant roots.

Pew’s analysis finds that Latino immigrants are significantly more likely to say their origins are central to their identity, while U.S.-born Latinos — especially those in the third generation or higher — are less likely to feel that connection. The report notes that “U.S. Hispanics are divided on whether their identity helps or hurts them in America,” with some respondents describing their Latino identity as a source of pride and connection, and others saying it is tied to discrimination or barriers.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Clerk Matthew Sandbar, 34, demonstrates part of the ballot-sorting process to members of the media attending a walkthrough of the Philadelphia Ballot Processing Center used to process the ballots of the 2022 US midterm elections, in Philadelphia on October 27, 2022.

Photo by Ryan Collerd / AFP via Getty Images

A Democracy Cannot Run on an AI Model

Tallying the results of Washington, DC’s first ranked-choice election in June took about 10 days—longer than many voters are used to. In an age when artificial intelligence can generate an answer in seconds, waiting days for election results can feel old-fashioned, inefficient, even suspicious. And it is about to matter far more widely. This November, 17 states, cities, and counties will use ranked-choice voting, including Maine and Alaska statewide, in races that could help decide control of Congress. More voters than ever will watch results take days to resolve, and more will be asked to trust a count they cannot see.

But that slowness may be one of its most democratic features.

Keep ReadingShow less