Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

FEC will be in limbo again after just 29 days of minimal life

Caroline Hunter

Caroline Hunter's departure leaves the campaign finance regulator without a quorum until her would-be successor, Allen Dickerson, is confirmed.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

UPDATES with President Trump's nominee for the new vacancy.

The Federal Election Commission will be totally toothless once again.

Commissioner Caroline Hunter announced Friday that she's resigning at the end of next week, leaving the panel with just three members and therefore no quorum.

Her departure will come just 29 days after the arrival of fellow Republican Trey Trainor, a Texas campaign finance attorney. His party-line confirmation by the Senate in May restored a quorum to the commission for the first time in more than nine months — the longest period in the 45-year history of the agency charged with regulating donations to and spending by campaigns.


The resignation took her fellow commissioners by surprise, but not the White House. Hours later, President Trump said he was nominating Allen Dickerson, who's now legal director at the Institute for Free Speech, a conservative nonprofit devoted to campaign finance deregulation.

In her resignation letter, Hunter said it was time for the agency to benefit from "new faces and fresh perspectives." But she urged Trump to choose a successor committed, as she has been, to protecting the First Amendment right of contributors to make unlimited and unregulated donations.

That is precisely what Dickerson's career has been about. And, in the decade since the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision expanded its money-is-free-speech rationale — allowing businesses and unions as well as individuals to give as much as they like — Hunter often opposed efforts at the agency to set structure and boundaries around the flow of campaign cash.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

It was not immediately clear how quickly Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, an ardent campaign finance deregulator, would arrange for Senate confirmation — or how hard the Democrats would work to delay if not prevent it.

The Senate's schedule is limited between now and the election, and Democrats will surely oppose any nominee who is not paired with someone they approve of.

Presidents have traditionally forwarded nominees for the commission in bipartisan pairs, but Trump has now put forward two Republicans in a row. Democratic senators have pushed for the president to also nominate FEC attorney Shana Broussard, who would be the commission's first Black member.

In the meantime, a return to limbo means the commission cannot address more than 300 cases pending on its enforcement docket — or any new ones brought against presidential or congressional candidates or the organizations hoping to steer money in their direction during the next four months.

Although the panel is largely deadlocked even when there is a quorum, because no party can hold more than half the seats and four votes are required for action, the result for the time being is a nearly totally hands off regulatory approach to the flow of several billions of dollars in political money.

The FEC will not even be able to conduct routine audits of federal candidate fundraising and spending, work that usually proceeds even when the commissioners are in partisan paralysis.

Last week the commission held its first meeting since August, but nothing controversial was on the agenda and no substantive decisions were made. No meetings can be held unless there's a quorum.

Hunter had been on the commission since 2008 and her term had expired six years ago, but the law had allowed her to stay on.

In her letter, Hunter also called out — although not by name — her Democratic panel colleague Ellen Weintraub, with whom she often butted heads.

"One commissioner — who has served for more than a decade past the expiration of her term — routinely mischaracterizes disagreements among commissioners about the law as 'dysfunction,' rather than a natural consequence of the FEC's unique structure, misrepresents the jurisdiction of the agency and deliberately enables outside groups to usurp the Commission's role in litigation and chill protected speech," she wrote. "The American people deserve better."

In response to the resignation, Weintraub said, "It's keenly disappointing for the FEC to lose its quorum in just a blink of an eye after we regained it. But of course I wish Caroline well in this and all her future endeavors."

Good-government groups had largely opposed Trainor's confirmation because of his deregulatory approach, but they were also critical of the long period of inertia at the agency.

"It is deeply disheartening and concerning that the FEC will again be missing in action," said Meredith McGehee of the democracy reform advocacy group Issue One. (It operates but is journalistically independent of The Fulcrum.) "The American people need a watchdog devoted to enforcing the anti-corruption laws on the books and ensuring transparency of the billions of dollars being spent to influence their votes."

Hunter is joining the legal team of Stand Together, a criminal justice reform nonprofit founded by the long-prominent conservative political financier Charles Koch.

Before joining the FEC she was a member of the Election Assistance Commission after working as a lawyer in the George W. Bush White House and for the Republican National Committee.

Read More

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

A check mark and hands.

Photo by Allison Saeng on Unsplash. Unsplash+ License obtained by the author.

MERGER: The Organization that Brought Ranked Choice Voting and Ended SuperPACs in Maine Joins California’s Nonpartisan Primary Pioneers

Originally published by Independent Voter News.

Today, I am proud to share an exciting milestone in my journey as an advocate for democracy and electoral reform.

Keep ReadingShow less
Half-Baked Alaska

A photo of multiple checked boxes.

Getty Images / Thanakorn Lappattaranan

Half-Baked Alaska

This past year’s elections saw a number of state ballot initiatives of great national interest, which proposed the adoption of two “unusual” election systems for state and federal offices. Pairing open nonpartisan primaries with a general election using ranked choice voting, these reforms were rejected by the citizens of Colorado, Idaho, and Nevada. The citizens of Alaska, however, who were the first to adopt this dual system in 2020, narrowly confirmed their choice after an attempt to repeal it in November.

Ranked choice voting, used in Alaska’s general elections, allows voters to rank their candidate choices on their ballot and then has multiple rounds of voting until one candidate emerges with a majority of the final vote and is declared the winner. This more representative result is guaranteed because in each round the weakest candidate is dropped, and the votes of that candidate’s supporters automatically transfer to their next highest choice. Alaska thereby became the second state after Maine to use ranked choice voting for its state and federal elections, and both have had great success in their use.

Keep ReadingShow less
Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

The United States Supreme Court.

Getty Images / Rudy Sulgan

Top-Two Primaries Under the Microscope

Fourteen years ago, after the Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional the popular blanket primary system, Californians voted to replace the deeply unpopular closed primary that replaced it with a top-two system. Since then, Democratic Party insiders, Republican Party insiders, minor political parties, and many national reform and good government groups, have tried (and failed) to deep-six the system because the public overwhelmingly supports it (over 60% every year it’s polled).

Now, three minor political parties, who opposed the reform from the start and have unsuccessfully sued previously, are once again trying to overturn it. The Peace and Freedom Party, the Green Party, and the Libertarian Party have teamed up to file a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Their brief repeats the same argument that the courts have previously rejected—that the top-two system discriminates against parties and deprives voters of choice by not guaranteeing every party a place on the November ballot.

Keep ReadingShow less
Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

Someone filling out a ballot.

Getty Images / Hill Street Studios

Ranked Choice Voting May Be a Stepping Stone to Proportional Representation

In the 2024 U.S. election, several states did not pass ballot initiatives to implement Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) despite strong majority support from voters under 65. Still, RCV was defended in Alaska, passed by a landslide in Washington, D.C., and has earned majority support in 31 straight pro-RCV city ballot measures. Still, some critics of RCV argue that it does not enhance and promote democratic principles as much as forms of proportional representation (PR), as commonly used throughout Europe and Latin America.

However, in the U.S. many people have not heard of PR. The question under consideration is whether implementing RCV serves as a stepping stone to PR by building public understanding and support for reforms that move away from winner-take-all systems. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of respondents (N=1000) on the 2022 Cooperative Election Survey (CES), results show that individuals who favor RCV often also know about and back PR. When comparing other types of electoral reforms, RCV uniquely transfers into support for PR, in ways that support for nonpartisan redistricting and the national popular vote do not. These findings can inspire efforts that demonstrate how RCV may facilitate the adoption of PR in the U.S.

Keep ReadingShow less