Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump pick's in line for FEC after enduring Democratic jabs

Trey Trainor's confirmation hearing

Republican attorney Trey Trainor appeared before the Senate Rules Committee on Tuesday. He is expected to be confirmed to the FEC.

Sara Swann/The Fulcrum

Much to the chagrin of good governance groups, it appeared clear Tuesday that conservative campaign lawyer Trey Trainor is on his way to a seat on the Federal Election Commission.

Republicans said nothing at all critical, Democrats said nothing supportive and Trainor said almost nothing revelatory about his views during a Senate confirmation hearing lasting less than an hour and a half.

The pro forma nature of the proceedings was a clear signal that, as he runs for re-election, President Trump will be able to break with precedent by adding just one person, and from his own party, to the panel charged with regulating how presidential, congressional and outsider organizations raise and spend campaign contributions.


The longstanding practice has been FEC commissioners are nominated in bipartisan pairs, but much about the FEC hasn't followed precedent in years. It hasn't had a new member since 2013 and since September it's been almost entirely neutered for lack of a four-person quorum.

Trainor's presence would allow the agency to consider complaints and perform routine oversight during the height of the campaign season, but launching investigations or revamping policy would be almost impossible because four votes are required and a 2-2 split on ideological lines would be nearly assured.

Democrats and campaign finance watchdog groups are eager for the agency to get back on the job, but not with Trainor as the one reopening the doors. They say his career as an elections lawyer for Republicans in Texas and for Trump's 2016 campaign, and his clearly hands-off view about regulating or disclosing much about money in politics, don't bode well for the FEC over what would be a six-year term.

"I view the role of the FEC first and foremost as giving the American people confidence in our electoral system," Trainor told the Senate Rules and Administration Committee.

All three Democratic senators on hand voiced disappointment that Trump has not done what party leaders have asked and named Shana Broussard, a senior attorney at the FEC since 2015, to become a commissioner alongside Trainor.

"Abandoning bipartisan norms and pushing forward a controversial nominee is not the way to do it," Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota said of restoring the agency to working order. "Moving forward in this way will do more harm than good."

Asked by Tom Udall of Arizona if he supports a bipartisan pairing, Trainor said "the commission is in need of new ideas and new perspectives."

Republicans emphasized the importance of restoring functionality to the FEC. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, the most prominent campaign finance deregulator in Congress and a member of the committee, appeared briefly to say he would like to see Trump submit five more nominations in order for a total turnover of membership. (The three current commissioners are all serving on expired terms, as the law allows. By law no more than three members of each party can sit on the panel, so Trump would have to pick some Democrats to grant McConnell's wish.)

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York, also a panel member, said Trainor's sole qualification was his "long career as a conservative political operative."

When asked if he would recuse himself from matters before the FEC involving the president, Trainor said he would "approach all issues objectively," but refused to promise such a "blanket recusal" if confirmed.

Republicans lobbed mostly softballs at the nominee, while Democrats pressed for specifics on how he would handle particular issues. Trainor gave nonanswers to almost all the questions, saying he "didn't want to opine on something I would do as a commissioner" before being confirmed. But he promised to work to forge consensus on the commission.

Chairman Roy Blunt of Missouri did not say when the panel would send the nomination to the full Senate.

Read More

U.S. President Barack Obama speaking on the phone in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Barack Obama talks President Barack Obama talks with President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan during a phone call from the Oval Office on November 2, 2009 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, The White House

‘Obama, You're 15 Years Too Late!’

The mid-decade redistricting fight continues, while the word “hypocrisy” has become increasingly common in the media.

The origin of mid-decade redistricting dates back to the early history of the United States. However, its resurgence and legal acceptance primarily stem from the Texas redistricting effort in 2003, a controversial move by the Republican Party to redraw the state's congressional districts, and the 2006 U.S. Supreme Court decision in League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry. This decision, which confirmed that mid-decade redistricting is not prohibited by federal law, was a significant turning point in the acceptance of this practice.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hand of a person casting a ballot at a polling station during voting.

Gerrymandering silences communities and distorts elections. Proportional representation offers a proven path to fairer maps and real democracy.

Getty Images, bizoo_n

Gerrymandering Today, Gerrymandering Tomorrow, Gerrymandering Forever

In 1963, Alabama Governor George Wallace declared, "Segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever." (Watch the video of his speech.) As a politically aware high school senior, I was shocked by the venom and anger in his voice—the open, defiant embrace of systematic disenfranchisement, so different from the quieter racism I knew growing up outside Boston.

Today, watching politicians openly rig elections, I feel that same disbelief—especially seeing Republican leaders embrace that same systematic approach: gerrymandering now, gerrymandering tomorrow, gerrymandering forever.

Keep ReadingShow less
An oversized ballot box surrounded by people.

Young people worldwide form new parties to reshape politics—yet America’s two-party system blocks them.

Getty Images, J Studios

No Country for Young Politicians—and How To Fix That

In democracies around the world, young people have started new political parties whenever the establishment has sidelined their views or excluded them from policymaking. These parties have sometimes reinvigorated political competition, compelled established parties to take previously neglected issues seriously, or encouraged incumbent leaders to find better ways to include and reach out to young voters.

In Europe, a trio in their twenties started Volt in 2017 as a pan-European response to Brexit, and the party has managed to win seats in the European Parliament and in some national legislatures. In Germany, young people concerned about climate change created Klimaliste, a party committed to limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as per the Paris Agreement. Although the party hasn’t won seats at the federal level, they have managed to win some municipal elections. In Chile, leaders of the 2011 student protests, who then won seats as independent candidates, created political parties like Revolución Democrática and Convergencia Social to institutionalize their movements. In 2022, one of these former student leaders, Gabriel Boric, became the president of Chile at 36 years old.

Keep ReadingShow less
How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

Demonstrators gather outside of The United States Supreme Court during an oral arguments in Gill v. Whitford to call for an end to partisan gerrymandering on October 3, 2017 in Washington, DC

Getty Images, Olivier Douliery

How To Fix Gerrymandering: A Fair-Share Rule for Congressional Redistricting

The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield, and government to gain ground. ~ Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Col. Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788

The Problem We Face

The U.S. House of Representatives was designed as the chamber of Congress most directly tethered to the people. Article I of the Constitution mandates that seats be apportioned among the states according to population and that members face election every two years—design features meant to keep representatives responsive to shifting public sentiment. Unlike the Senate, which prioritizes state sovereignty and representation, the House translates raw population counts into political voice: each House district is to contain roughly the same number of residents, ensuring that every citizen’s vote carries comparable weight. In principle, then, the House serves as the nation’s demographic mirror, channeling the diverse preferences of the electorate into lawmaking and acting as a safeguard against unresponsive or oligarchic governance.

Nationally, the mismatch between the overall popular vote and the partisan split in House seats is small, with less than a 1% tilt. But state-level results tell a different story. Take Connecticut: Democrats hold all five seats despite Republicans winning over 40% of the statewide vote. In Oklahoma, the inverse occurs—Republicans control every seat even though Democrats consistently earn around 40% of the vote.

Keep ReadingShow less