Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Fix the FEC quick, bipartisan group of former lawmakers pleads

Porter Goss

One-time CIA Director Porter Goss was one of nine former members of Congress to sign a letter urging action to restore the FEC's quorum.

Win McNamee/Getty Images

With the Federal Election Commission ending its fifth month out of commission, an unusually bipartisan group of departed members of Congress says enough is enough.

Two former senators and seven former House members — five Republicans and four Democrats — pressed the Senate leadership Thursday to confirm new members of the commission right away, so that it can revive oversight of campaign donations and spending in this year's presidential and congressional campaigns.

The group joins coalitions of good-government groups and campaign finance lawyers who have issued similar appeals in recent weeks. But President Trump and Senate leaders are showing no signs of breaking their impasse and allowing the FEC to get back to work. It has been effectively shut down for lack of a quorum since Labor Day.


Just three seats are occupied, and by law it takes four votes for the commission to conduct even the most routine business. But filling the vacancies with people lacking an assertive approach to campaign finance regulation is not the answer, the nine lawmakers said.

"We strongly encourage you to refuse to confirm any FEC nominee who will not enforce campaign laws according to the Constitution, as Congress intended," their letter to the Senate said. "Confirming new commissioners who are opposed to enforcing the law would only extend the current dysfunction and dismantle the power of Congress."

That even five former members from the GOP were willing to sign on to such a message is unusual, because a bedrock view held by the party these days is that the FEC that regulates best is the one that regulates least.

The former members did not specify how the quorum should be restored, though. Because the three remaining commissioners have all agreed to remain past terms that expired years ago, the constitution of an entirely new panel of six is one obvious solution. But that would require a significant personnel deal between the White House and the Senate, because by law members of each party may hold no more than half the FEC seats.

A clean slate is what a bipartisan group of campaign finance lawyers would prefer. But a coalition of good-governance groups called for less drastic action, saying the priority should be restoring a quorum.

Although Trump put forth Texas Republican Party lawyer Trey Trainor as his single nominee more than two years ago, the Senate has never held a confirmation hearing. Historically, vacancies are filled as bipartisan couples, and the Democrats have signaled their choice to pair with Trainor would be senior FEC staffer Shana Broussard. But her nomination has never been formally made.

"The Founders wisely gave the Senate the duty of confirmation so it could ensure that individuals nominated for executive branch positions would faithfully execute the laws of our nation," the former members wrote.

All of the nine left office at least five years ago. The Republicans are former House members Jim Gerlach of Pennsylvania, Sue Myrick of North Carolina, Claudine Schneider of Rhode Island, Zach Wamp of Tennessee and Porter Goss of Florida, who went on to be CIA director in the George W. Bush administration. The Democrats were two former senators, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, and former House members Lynn Woolsey of California and Tim Roemer of Indiana, later ambassador to India in the Barack Obama administration.

All belong to the ReFormers Caucus, a group of ex-members advocating for democracy reforms and aligned with the political advocacy group Issue One. (That organization is also the parent of, but journalistically independent from, The Fulcrum.)


Read More

With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

A voter registration drive in Corpus Christi, Texas, on Oct. 5, 2024. The deadline to register to vote for Texas' March 3 primary election is Feb. 2, 2026. Changes to USPS policies may affect whether a voter registration application is processed on time if it's not postmarked by the deadline.

Gabriel Cárdenas for Votebeat

Postal Service Changes Mean Texas Voters Shouldn’t Wait To Mail Voter Registrations and Ballots

Texans seeking to register to vote or cast a ballot by mail may not want to wait until the last minute, thanks to new guidance from the U.S. Postal Service.

The USPS last month advised that it may not postmark a piece of mail on the same day that it takes possession of it. Postmarks are applied once mail reaches a processing facility, it said, which may not be the same day it’s dropped in a mailbox, for example.

Keep ReadingShow less
Post office trucks parked in a lot.

Changes to USPS postmarking, ranked choice voting fights, costly runoffs, and gerrymandering reveal growing cracks in U.S. election systems.

Photo by Sam LaRussa on Unsplash.

2026 Will See an Increase in Rejected Mail-In Ballots - Here's Why

While the media has kept people’s focus on the Epstein files, Venezuela, or a potential invasion of Greenland, the United States Postal Service adopted a new rule that will have a broad impact on Americans – especially in an election year in which millions of people will vote by mail.

The rule went into effect on Christmas Eve and has largely flown under the radar, with the exception of some local coverage, a report from PBS News, and Independent Voter News. It states that items mailed through USPS will no longer be postmarked on the day it is received.

Keep ReadingShow less
People voting at voting booths.

A little-known interstate compact could change how the U.S. elects presidents by 2028, replacing the Electoral College with the national popular vote.

Getty Images, VIEW press

The Quiet Campaign That Could Rewrite the 2028 Election

Most Americans are unaware, but a quiet campaign in states across the country is moving toward one of the biggest changes in presidential elections since the nation was founded.

A movement called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is happening mostly out of public view and could soon change how the United States picks its president, possibly as early as 2028.

Keep ReadingShow less