Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

5 things to know about FEC nominee Trey Trainor

Trey Trainor

Trey Trainor, who is expected to be confirmed to the Federal Election Commission, worked as a lawyer for President Trump's 2016 campaign.

Ralph Barrera/Austin American-Statesman

Without enough commissioners for a quorum, the Federal Election Commission has been a toothless watchdog for more than six months. Senate Republicans have now decided to reopen the agency that regulates federal campaign financing for the rest of the political season, but only for the most routine business, by adding a down-the-line conservative as the fourth commissioner.

Trey Trainor, an attorney in Austin and lawyer for the Texas Republican Party, reports Tuesday morning for his Senate confirmation hearing — 29 months after President Trump first nominated him.

Since there's no filibuster on nominations, Democrats who oppose Trainor's emphatic deregulatory approach to money in politics will not be able to prevent his confirmation as the first new FEC member in seven years. But since substantive FEC action requires four votes, it's highly likely Trainor will most often be joining the other conservative in a 2-2 deadlock for the foreseeable future.


The Senate Rules and Administration Committee is chaired by Republican Roy Blunt of Missouri, with Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota recently returned from the presidential campaign trail to take up her seat as the panel's top Democrat.

Here are five things to know about Trainor ahead of his hearing.

1. He is a Trump loyalist. After working as a lawyer for Trump's 2016 campaign and the Republican National Committee, Trainor spent the first few months of the administration as special assistant to the president's first Defense secretary, James Mattis, and in the Pentagon general counsel's office.

He's been a solo practitioner since November 2018. Before that he was an election law, campaign finance and government ethics lawyer at the Austin firm Ackerman. In addition to his work for the state party he's also been a general counsel for the Texas secretary of state and counsel to a state House committee on corporate regulation.

2. He's a fan of political anonymity. When Trainor served as the lawyer for Empower Texans, he defended the conservative lobbying group against the Texas Ethics Commission over donor disclosure requirements. He argued that financial disclosures could distract voters from the content of political messages.

During a January 2017 forum hosted by the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Trainor argued campaign finance regulation should be focused on lobbying activity, rather than political spending. He also made the case that the Federalist Papers would not have been as influential in the ratifying of the Constitution had they not been written under the pseudonym Publius.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay "wanted the weight of their argument to be what won," he said. "They looked at it from that perspective: 'If we do it anonymously, the people will read this and they will understand.' And so I can't imagine a world where they would have had to disclose with the state of New York that they had spent all of the money they'd spent."

3. Good-governance groups don't like him. The Campaign Legal Center, Common Cause, End Citizens United, Issue One (which incubates but is journalistically independent of The Fulcrum) and other groups that advocate for tighter campaign finance regulations have spoken out against Trainor. While the groups support restoring the FEC's quorum, they say his record shows he would not be nearly aggressive enough for their taste in enforcing campaign finance laws.

"A commissioner who opposes the FEC's mission can bring the entire agency to a halt," said CLC's Adav Noti. "Trainor's record shows that he would block the FEC's nonpartisan investigators and attorneys from doing their jobs."

4. He has expressed religious intolerance. Just before he was nominated, Trainor went on Twitter to point his followers toward anti-Protestant rhetoric on the conservative Roman Catholic radio program Church Militant — including promotional material declaring that "Protestantism is poison."

Trainor, who identifies as Catholic and is the father of six, captioned a link to the radio show "Catholicism or nothing." As a result of public backlash, Trainor set his Twitter to private and his feed remains locked to the public. News reports about this incident apparently scuttled the chances for his confirmation by the Senate three years ago.

5. He's not much of a donor. According to OpenSecrets, a website that tracks giving and spending by campaigns, James E. Trainor III (his full name) of Driftwood, Texas (population 144), has only made one contribution to a federal campaign — a $1,000 check written a dozen years ago to Roger Williams, who had been Trainor's boss as Texas secretary of state and was then pondering a Senate run. (Williams has been a House member since 2013.)

Trainor has given $1,150 over three years to the Texas Right to Life PAC, according to state campaign finance records. In 2009, he gave $64 to Texans for Ted Cruz for campaign mailers. His first reported donation came in 2002, when he gave $50 to David Dewhurst's successful campaign to be lieutenant governor.

Read More

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
Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.
A pile of political buttons sitting on top of a table

Once Again, Politicians Are Choosing Their Voters. It’s Time for Voters To Choose Back.

Once again, politicians are trying to choose their voters to guarantee their own victories before the first ballot is cast.

In the latest round of redistricting wars, Texas Republicans are attempting a rare mid-decade redistricting to boost their advantage ahead of the 2026 midterms, and Democratic governors in California and New York are signaling they’re ready to “fight fire with fire” with their own partisan gerrymanders.

Keep ReadingShow less
Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

Wilson Deschine sits at the "be my voice" voter registration stand at the Navajo Nation annual rodeo, in Window Rock.

Getty Images, David Howells

Stolen Land, Stolen Votes: Native Americans Defending the VRA Protects Us All – and We Should Support Them

On July 24, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked a Circuit Court order in a far-reaching case that could affect the voting rights of all Americans. Native American tribes and individuals filed the case as part of their centuries-old fight for rights in their own land.

The underlying subject of the case confronts racial gerrymandering against America’s first inhabitants, where North Dakota’s 2021 redistricting reduced Native Americans’ chances of electing up to three state representatives to just one. The specific issue that the Supreme Court may consider, if it accepts hearing the case, is whether individuals and associations can seek justice under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). That is because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, contradicting other courts, said that individuals do not have standing to bring Section 2 cases.

Keep ReadingShow less