Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for U.S. Senate, speaks at an event in Lubbock on Oct 7, 2025. Paxton is seeking to shut down Jolt Initiative, a civic engagement group for Latinos, alleging that it's involved in illegal voter registration efforts. The group is fighting back.

Trace Thomas for The Texas Tribune

Jolt Initiative Hits Back at Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton in Fight Over Voter Registration

Jolt Initiative, a nonprofit that aims to increase civic participation among Latinos, is suing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to block his efforts to shut the organization down.

Paxton announced Monday that he was seeking to revoke the nonprofit’s charter, alleging that it had orchestrated “a systematic, unlawful voter registration scheme.”

Keep ReadingShow less
MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

A deep dive into ongoing threats to U.S. democracy—from MAGA election interference and state voting restrictions to filibuster risks—as America approaches 2026 and 2028.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

MAGA Gerrymandering, Pardons, Executive Actions Signal Heightened 2026 Voting Rights Threats

Tuesday, November 4, demonstrated again that Americans want democracy and US elections are conducted credibly. Voter turnout was strong; there were few administrative glitches, but voters’ choices were honored.

The relatively smooth elections across the country nonetheless took place despite electiondenial and anti-voting efforts continuing through election day. These efforts will likely intensify as we move toward the 2026 midterms and 2028 presidential election. The MAGA drive for unprecedented mid-decade, extreme political gerrymandering of congressional districts to guarantee their control of the House of Representatives is a conspicuous thrust of their campaign to remain in power at all costs.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

Major redistricting cases in Louisiana and Texas threaten the Voting Rights Act and the representation of Black and Latino voters across the South.

Getty Images, kali9

The Voting Rights Act Is Under Attack in the South

Under court order, Louisiana redrew to create a second majority-Black district—one that finally gave true representation to the community where my family lives. But now, that district—and the entire Voting Rights Act (VRA)—are under attack. Meanwhile, here in Texas, Republican lawmakers rammed through a mid-decade redistricting plan that dramatically reduces Black and Latino voting power in Congress. As a Louisiana-born Texan, it’s disheartening to see that my rights to representation as a Black voter in Texas, and those of my family back home in Louisiana, are at serious risk.

Two major redistricting cases in these neighboring states—Louisiana v. Callais and Texas’s statewide redistricting challenge, LULAC v. Abbott—are testing the strength and future of the VRA. In Louisiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to decide not just whether Louisiana must draw a majority-Black district to comply with Section 2 of the VRA, but whether considering race as one factor to address proven racial discrimination in electoral maps can itself be treated as discriminatory. It’s an argument that contradicts the purpose of the VRA: to ensure all people, regardless of race, have an equal opportunity to elect candidates amid ongoing discrimination and suppression of Black and Latino voters—to protect Black and Brown voters from dilution.

Keep ReadingShow less