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.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

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

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