Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

High court rules against a donor's secrecy, maybe boosting disclosure

FEC commissioner Ellen Weintraub

Ellen Weintraub, a member of the Federal Election Commission, says she plans to reveal the name of a secret donor to a GOP super PAC.

Paul Morigi/Getty Images

In what is being hailed as a victory for campaign finance transparency, the Supreme Court has rejected an attempt to keep secret the name of a donor who gave $1.7 million to a Republican super PAC eight years ago.

The decision holds some potential to make it more difficult for so-called dark money groups to shield the identities of their biggest contributors in this campaign season and beyond. Increasing sunlight on the forces pouring so many millions into American politics is a main goal of democracy reform groups at a time when increased regulation is not a realistic hope.

The high court on Monday let stand an appeals court's ruling that the donor — a trust fund and its trustee identified only as "John Doe" in court filings — has no right to remain anonymous and may be publicly identified by the Federal Election Commission.


Ellen Weintraub, the most assertive regulator on the commission, says she plans to unmask John Doe as soon as the court's decision is processed by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. She would be acting unilaterally at a time when the FEC has almost entirely ceased operating for lack of a quorum.

The donation was made in 2012, early in the rise of the "dark money" system decried by campaign finance reform advocates. Dark money groups are nonprofits regulated by the IRS, not the FEC, and therefore do not have to disclose their sources of revenue. They are similar to super PACs in that they may spend unlimited amounts on a campaign but are not directly affiliated with the candidate. Super PACs are regulated by the FEC and must disclose their donors.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

It is not yet clear how much impact this case will have on increasing campaign finance transparency, because the Republican who funneled the money to the super PAC is going to be exposed only because of a connection to a case at the FEC.

That was a complaint by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, maintaining the $1.7 million donation to the Now or Never PAC was illegal because it was listed as coming from someone other than the real donor — the so-far-unidentified trustee.

According to an agreement settling the complaint, on the same day as that donation, money was given by the same secretive donor to a group called the Government Integrity Project. That group in turn donated to the American Conservative Union, which then gave $1.7 million to the Now or Never PAC.

Now or Never PAC, which was terminated in 2018, was created in 2012 to support candidates who favored balancing the federal budget. It made millions of dollars in independent expenditures mosty in support of Republican congressional candidates and against Democratic candidates.

The FEC in Novembrer 2017 signed off on the settlement, which called for the groups to pay $350,000 in fines for the money funneling. Normally that would have triggered public release of all the case documents. But attorneys for the unnamed donor got a court order to redact the name while their attempt to keep it permanently secret moved through the courts. They argued release of the names violated privacy and federal election and public records laws. But the district court and the appeals court rejected all of those arguments.

Read More

"Vote Here" sign
Grace Cary

Bill would require ranked-choice voting for congressional elections

Meyers is executive editor of The Fulcrum.

Three members of Congress are hoping to bring ranked-choice voting, which has been growing at the state and municipal levels, to congressional elections.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) on Thursday introduced the Ranked Choice Voting Act, which would change how all members of Congress are elected. In addition, the bill would authorize funding to assist states to help them educate voters and implement RCV-compliant systems for primary and general elections by 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting

Jessie Harris (left,) a registered independent, casts a ballot at during South Carolina's Republican primary on Feb. 24.

Joe Lamberti for The Washington Post via Getty Images

Our election system is failing independent voters

Gruber is senior vice president of Open Primaries and co-founder of Let Us Vote.

With the race to Election Day entering the homestretch, the Harris and Trump campaigns are in a full out sprint to reach independent voters, knowing full well that independents have been the deciding vote in every presidential contest since the Obama era. And like clockwork every election season, debates are arising about who independent voters are, whether they matter and even whether they actually exist at all.

Lost, perhaps intentionally, in these debates is one undebatable truth: Our electoral system treats the millions of Americans registered as independent voters as second-class citizens by law.

Keep ReadingShow less
ballot

The ballot used in Alaska's 2022 special election.

What is ranked-choice voting anyway?

Landry is the facilitator of the League of Women Voters of Colorado’s Alternative Voting Methods Task Force. An earlier version of this article was published in the LWV of Boulder County’s June 2023 Voter newsletter.

The term “ranked-choice voting” is so bandied about these days that it tends to take up all the oxygen in any discussion on better voting methods. The RCV label was created in 2002 by the city of San Francisco. People who want to promote evolution beyond our flawed plurality voting are often excited to jump on the RCV bandwagon.

However, many people, including RCV advocates, are unaware that it is actually an umbrella term, and ranked-choice voting in fact exists in multiple forms. Some people refer to any alternative voting method as RCV — even approval voting and STAR Voting, which don’t rank candidates! This article only discusses voting methods that do rank candidates.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting
Paul J. Richards/Getty Images

Make safe states matter

Richie is co-founder and senior advisor of FairVote.

It’s time for “safe state” voters to be more than nervous spectators and symbolic participants in presidential elections.

The latest poll averages confirm that the 2024 presidential election will again hinge on seven swing states. Just as in 2020, expect more than 95 percent of major party candidate campaign spending and events to focus on these states. Volunteers will travel there, rather than engage with their neighbors in states that will easily go to Donald Trump or Kamala Harris. The decisions of a few thousand swing state voters will dwarf the importance of those of tens of millions of safe-state Americans.

But our swing-state myopia creates an opportunity. Deprived of the responsibility to influence which candidate will win, safe state voters can embrace the freedom to vote exactly the way they want, including for third-party and independent candidates.

Keep ReadingShow less