Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less