Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Another roster of ideas for a Federal Election Commission revamp

A prominent progressive political reform group is out with proposals designed to end the dysfunction that's come to define the agency charged with regulating federal campaign finance law.

The recommendations issued this week by the Brennan Center for Justiceinclude legislation to address the Federal Election Commission's well-documented voting gridlock, improve its leadership and give investigative teeth to an agency created to enforce campaign finance law.

"This is a moment where democracy reform is front and center, and FEC reform is something that we must tackle if we want to have a more functional electoral process," said Daniel Weiner, the author of the recommendations, which are directed at Congress.

The five specific ideas are:


  • End the mandatory partisan split. The FEC now has six seats, reserved equally for Republicans and Democrats on the theory that such a balance prevents partisanship from dominating the agency's work. But it now has just four commissioners, two from each party, and obtaining a majority for any proposal has proved nearly impossible. Shrinking the commission to five members, with one a political independent, would help break the partisan deadlock.
  • Make the vetting of nominees more inclusive. To ensure qualified FEC commissioners, the president would be required to convene an advisory panel from both parties to help choose nominees.
  • Give the commission a real leader. The chairmanship now rotates annually. Handing the gavel to a person the president chooses, as is the case at most federal regulatory agencies, would give the party in the White House a bit of an edge.
  • Eliminate indefinite holdovers. Commissioners are supposed to serve a single six-year term. Yet each of the current members has been in office more than a decade because a member may remain until a replacement wins Senate confirmation.
  • Overhaul the enforcement process. This proposal would create an enforcement bureau with investigative power, allow the agency to conduct random audits of fundraising committees and increase the agency budget to improve its staffing and resources.

Read More

U.S. Capitol.

A rundown of the House bills most likely to become law this week — from seafood fraud enforcement to a sanctions bill critics call a tariff bill.

Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Both Chambers in Session this Week

Last Minute Rush

We’re not going to describe every bill the House aims to take action on this week because there’s lots. Instead, we’re going to focus on the ones that will become law if passed by the House and pull a few notable bills at the beginning of the legislative process. We’ll use the same level of discretion at the end of this week when we review what actually happened between today, Monday Sept. 14 and Friday, Sept. 18.

Probable New Laws

In addition to the bills listed below are also a couple of park renamings. All of these will, if passed, then go to the President for signing and once that’s done, become law.

Keep ReadingShow less

Alaska Is Voting on More Than Ranked Choice Voting. It’s Voting on Who Gets to Vote

Alaska voters will once again vote on a measure to repeal its nonpartisan election system. Those fighting to preserve the system have gone to the courts to make a simple case: It’s only fair that voters know exactly what is on their ballot.

Specifically the consequences of Ballot Measure 2, which would give parties the ability to shut out 60% of Alaska voters registered as independents. This is what attorney Scott Kendall argued before the Alaska Supreme Court last week.

Keep ReadingShow less
Group of young adult students sit at desks in classroom listening to teacher

Why do Americans respond so differently to hard history lessons? A look at the three psychological mindsets driving the patriotism debate — and a path past it.

Lighthouse Films/Getty Images

“They Hate America”: Patriotism in the Face of Historical Updates

I happened upon a civil discussion blog and read a post by a man who said he was happy to report that when he attended a panel discussion about teaching patriotism in the schools, all went well. He said that’s because most of the people in the bridging organization that hosted the event are “pretty patriotic.” He clarified that by writing, “None of the type of bad actors (and there are many) who want to teach kids to hate America and Western Civilization were represented.”

Someone made a comment about why we can’t incorporate historical change into curriculum and objected to the notion that a segment of the population wants to teach kids to hate America. The man who posted cited what he believes is proof. A last commenter simply input the emoji for a sleeping person, as though the argument was boring or unimportant.

Keep ReadingShow less