Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Bullock wants public financing, but the FEC's powerless to give it to him

Steve Bullock

Accepting taxpayer cash would reflect Gov. Steve Bullock's campaign message about big money's threat to democracy.

Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images

Steve Bullock is hoping to rejuvenate his lagging presidential bid with an infusion from a rarely tapped vein of public money — but he's going to be stymied indefinitely because the federal officials tasked with approving the move have been stopped from doing their jobs.

More than any other White House aspirant, Montana's governor has focused his campaign on a commitment to getting big money out of politics, which he sees at the root of Washington's dysfunction and de facto corruption. And so his application to become the first — and probably the only — 2020 candidate to use taxpayer funds for his campaign can fairly be described as walking the walk after talking the talk.

Except the Federal Election Commission has been effectively shuttered for one month for lack of a quorum, so it does not have the legal authority to give him the go ahead.


The Bullock campaign said it would file the papers Tuesday, right after the end of the third quarter for fundraising. At that point the FEC is supposed to audit the campaign's books to ensure he qualifies.

It's normally a straightforward undertaking, and there seems little doubt about the outcome, but it cannot happen until there are at least four commissioners in office. And the Senate has taken no steps toward confirming President Trump's single nominee for one of the three vacancies.

An alternative is to sue in federal court to make the Treasury release the money, an approach Republican Sen. John McCain was starting to pursue while the FEC lacked a quorum during a stretch of his 2008 presidential bid.

All the top presidential contenders routinely relied on the public financing system during the first decades after it was created, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, to reduce the influence of big-money donors. George W. Bush in 2000 started the trend against taking the money, which requires candidates to abide by strict spending limits. The trend has become conventional practice since the courts and the FEC have energized the flow of cash through the system.

If Bullock ends up with public money, he will be the first Democratic presidential candidate to get some since former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley received $1.1 million during his short-lived run of 2016. And that year, Green Party candidate Jill Stein received $456,035.

Under the system, tax dollars match the first $250 of each contribution eligible candidates in the primaries receive from individuals. The money comes from people who allocate $3 off their taxes to the fund on their federal returns.

Bullock has made a single debate stage appearance, in July, and his fundraising numbers and poll showing (consistently less than 1 percent) mean he's been excluded from the October debate.

In the second quarter, April through June, he raised $2.1 million — while the top fundraiser at the time, Mayor Pete Buttigieg of South Bend, Ind., hauled in $24.9 million. In the same time period, Bullock spent $582,748 — so he's nowhere close to reaching the limits on spending, measured in the tens of millions of dollars, that govern public financing recipients.

Bullock's second quarter haul suggests he could be eligible for an addition $1 million or $2 million. His campaign declined to say how much he will report when third quarter totals have to be submitted on Oct. 15.


Read More

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

A person looks out at the North Tower pool at the 9/11 Memorial and Museum ahead of the 25th anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center on September 7, 2026, in New York City.

Gary Hershorn/Getty Images

How 9/11’s Memory Continues to Shape American Citizenship

Twenty‑five years after September 11th, the burden of that day continues to affect us in ways that are difficult to express. It was a moment of profound loss, but also one that revealed both the vulnerability and resilience of our national fabric. The memories remain vivid for many of us: where we were, what we felt, and how the world appeared to change in an instant. Even now, a quarter century later, the impact of that morning continues to shape how we understand our country, our responsibilities, and our relationships with one another.

To help us all reflect on that day, I invited four contributors to the Fulcrum to share reflections not to revisit the tragedy, but to commemorate the ways it has persisted in our consciousness twenty-five years later.

Keep ReadingShow less
Close-up shot of a Black woman's hands receiving a mail-in ballot to vote in a USA Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, or local election

An immigrant's perspective on why America's election debate over security vs. access is a false choice — and how USPS mail ballot rules fit in.

Jeremy Poland/Getty Images

Ballot Security and Voter Access Are Not Opposites: What the USPS Ballot Rule Gets Right

I came to the United States from India in 1982. In Indian elections, I watched officials check voter identity and mark a voter’s finger with indelible ink. Party representatives observed the process. The system was imperfect, as every large democracy is, but it sent a simple message: casting one vote is a serious civic act, and the process should make that clear.

When I later became an American citizen and cast my first ballot, the experience felt very different. A poll worker found my name on a list and handed me a ballot. In my precinct, there was no photo identification check. I was surprised—not because I expected voting to be difficult, but because I expected a system as consequential as an election to have clear, visible safeguards.

Keep ReadingShow less
A group of people wait in line to get their ballots to vote in the election.

Uncontested elections are more common than you'd think. From open primaries to multi-member districts, here's what states like California and Alaska are doing to bring real competition back to the ballot — and what it'll take to change political culture, too.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

What America Can Do About Its Uncontested Elections

Politics nerds have many ideas about how to strengthen American democracy; however, few directly address silent elections. For example, ranked-choice voting does nothing to encourage more candidates to run if there are not enough. Term limits increase turnover, but even newcomers can frequently run uncontested in general elections if they have won competitive primaries.

Fortunately, the cause isn’t hopeless. For one, tightening campaign finance laws would put potential challengers on more even footing with corporate-backed politicians, encouraging more candidates to run. Independent redistricting would also help. The Cook Political Report, a poll aggregator, considers only 69 of America’s 435 House districts competitive. Fair redistricting means more competitive districts and therefore more contested elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Americans Vote In The 2024 Presidential Election

Voters cast their ballots on November 5, 2024 in Jefferson, New Hampshire.

John Tully/Getty Images

Non-Popular Vote Presidents: Conservatives’ Pathways for Abandoning Fiscal Responsibility

In political science and macroeconomic analysis, conservative administrations that win governance through the Electoral College without securing the national popular vote (historically exemplified by administrations like George W. Bush in 2000 and Donald Trump in 2016) navigate specific structural, ideological, and strategic pathways that often lead to the abandonment of traditional fiscal restraint.

Supply-Side Supremacy and "Starve the Beast"

Keep ReadingShow less