Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

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