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

A better direction for democracy reform

Denver election judge Eric Cobb carefully looks over ballots as counting continued on Nov. 6. Voters in Colorado rejected a ranked choice voting and open primaries measure.

Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

A better direction for democracy reform

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

This is the conclusion of a two-part, post-election series addressing the questions of what happened, why, what does it mean and what did we learn? Read part one.

I think there is a better direction for reform than the ranked choice voting and open primary proposals that were defeated on Election Day: combining fusion voting for single-winner elections with party-list proportional representation for multi-winner elections. This straightforward solution addresses the core problems voters care about: lack of choices, gerrymandering, lack of competition, etc., with a single transformative sweep.

Keep ReadingShow less
To-party doom loop
Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America

Let’s make sense of the election results

Drutman is a senior fellow at New America and author of "Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America."

Well, here are some of my takeaways from Election Day, and some other thoughts.

1. The two-party doom loop keeps getting doomier and loopier.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person voting in Denver

A proposal to institute ranked choice voting in Colorado was rejected by voters.

RJ Sangosti/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Despite setbacks, ranked choice voting will continue to grow

Mantell is director of communications for FairVote.

More than 3 million people across the nation voted for better elections through ranked choice voting on Election Day, as of current returns. Ranked choice voting is poised to win majority support in all five cities where it was on the ballot, most notably with an overwhelming win in Washington, D.C. – 73 percent to 27 percent.

Keep ReadingShow less
Electoral College map

It's possible Donald Trump and Kamala Harris could each get 269 electoral votes this year.

Electoral College rules are a problem. A worst-case tie may be ahead.

Johnson is the executive director of the Election Reformers Network, a national nonpartisan organization advancing common-sense reforms to protect elections from polarization. Keyssar is a Matthew W. Stirling Jr. professor of history and social policy at the Harvard Kennedy School. His work focuses on voting rights, electoral and political institutions, and the evolution of democracies.

It’s the worst-case presidential election scenario — a 269–269 tie in the Electoral College. In our hyper-competitive political era, such a scenario, though still unlikely, is becoming increasingly plausible, and we need to grapple with its implications.

Recent swing-state polling suggests a slight advantage for Kamala Harris in the Rust Belt, while Donald Trump leads in the Sun Belt. If the final results mirror these trends, Harris wins with 270 electoral votes. But should Trump take the single elector from Nebraska’s 2nd congressional district — won by Joe Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2016 — then both candidates would be deadlocked at 269.

Keep ReadingShow less