Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Good-government coalition opposes restocking the FEC in an election year

Empty podium

The agency has lacked a quorum for 19 weeks, meaning it can't regulate money in the 2020 campaign.

Semen Salivanchuk/Getty Images

Hitting the restart button on the Federal Election Commission during this campaign season is not the answer to better enforcement of the rules regulating money in politics, a coalition of good-government groups says.

Twenty-one such organizations declared their disagreement Monday with a proposal from a bipartisan collection of 31 prominent campaign finance lawyers. Last week the lawyers asked President Trump and the leaders of Congress to come up with an entirely new slate at the FEC to oversee campaign donations and spending in this year's presidential and congressional races.

Since the law allows half the commissioners to favor broad deregulation, because they're Republicans, lax enforcement and gridlock would be the end result of such an overhaul, the reform groups argued. Instead, they called for the confirmation of one or two new commissioners to create a quorum permitting at least minimal oversight through November.


The agency has had a long run of ideological division. And, since it's designed so that neither party may fill a majority of the seats, that polarization has meant many of the toughest decisions have gone unaddressed for years.

But that paralysis has now gone to a new level. The panel has had just three members, one short of the minimum required to take any substantive action, for the past 19 weeks. All are serving past the expiration of their terms, as the law allows. But they may not hold public meetings, open new investigations, identify and sanction newly alleged campaign finance violations, or conduct audits of presidential candidates' fundraising and spending. Neither can it dispose of more than 300 cases already on its docket.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

The last time there was no quorum was 2008. But, after six months with just two seats occupied, President George W. Bush and Senate Democrats restocked the entire commission in June, allowing it to referee campaign finance disputes during the general election campaign.

Trump's one nominee for the agency, Republican Texas attorney Trey Trainor, has been in limbo for two years — and his confirmation has recently grown more complicated. The newly released files of the late Thomas Hofeller, who was renowned for his expertise as a partisan gerrymanderer, shows that he worked with Trainor to make the districts in normally Democratic-leaning Galveston County much more favorable to the GOP, according to the news site WhoWhatWhy.

If his nomination stays alive, as a practical matter the only way to get a second vacancy filled would be if the choice was assigned to the top Democrat in the Senate, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

The lawyers say the time is ripe for Trump to put forward an entire slate of six, three of whom would have to be Democrats.

But the the good-government groups say that, instead, after at least one new person is seated, a bipartisan blue-ribbon panel should be established to help find qualified candidates to fill the remaining spots.

While the groups agree that a functioning FEC is crucial to the country's electoral process, especially ahead of this year's election, they said the agency's problems predate its loss of a quorum: "Those problems stem largely from the historical practice of nominating and confirming commissioners who are ideologically opposed to the mission of the agency and who block enforcement of our nation's anti-corruption laws."

"To ensure the 2020 elections are transparent and fair, the president and Senate must prioritize restoration of the FEC's quorum, but that is no excuse to restock the FEC with yet another crop of commissioners who oppose campaign finance reform," argues Adav Noti of the Campaign Legal Center, one of the groups on the letter.

The other organizations include Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Common Cause, End Citizens United Action Fund, League of Women Voters of the United States, Public Citizen and Take Back Our Republic.

Read More

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

A roll of "voted" stickers.

Pexels, Element5 Digital

One Lesson from the Elections: Looking At Universal Voting

The analysis and parsing of learned lessons from the 2024 elections will continue for a long time. What did the campaigns do right and wrong? What policies will emerge from the new arrangements of power? What do the parties need to do for the future?

An equally important question is what lessons are there for our democratic structures and processes. One positive lesson is that voting itself was almost universally smooth and effective; we should applaud the election officials who made that happen. But, many elements of the 2024 elections are deeply challenging, from the increasingly outsized role of billionaires in the process to the onslaught of misinformation and disinformation.

Keep ReadingShow less
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