Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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 Justice include 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

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

Government Debt Ceiling - Capitol, Congress and Senate - Budget Package

Getty Images//Stock Photo

Between a Rock and a Hard Place

On January 20, 2025, at the moment he takes the oath of office, President Trump will find himself between a rock and a hard place. The rock is the nature of his job, that he must carry out the laws of the land, including the spending of money on Congressionally approved programs. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution establishes one of the President’s core responsibilities – “He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

The hard place is that on January 1, 2025, the 2023 suspension of the debt ceiling law expired. The ceiling is now 31.4 trillion dollars, while the debt is over 36 trillion. Trump 47 will be the first President to be constrained by the debt ceiling on day one. Starting January 1 and continuing from January 20, absent some action by Congress, every dollar spent will add a fraction of a dollar to the national debt, putting the President further and further out of compliance with the debt ceiling law.

Keep ReadingShow less
In Dark Times, We Should Celebrate Every Victory for the Rule of Law

President-elect Donald Trump speaks to the press following a meeting with Senate Republicans at the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, DC on January 8, 2025.

(Photo by Nathan Posner/Anadolu via Getty Images)

In Dark Times, We Should Celebrate Every Victory for the Rule of Law

On Friday, Donald Trump’s status as a convicted felon was made official in the New York courtroom of Judge Juan Merchan. As he handed down a sentence of “unconditional release,” the judge delivered a stern rebuke to the president-elect.

The New York Times reported that Merchan “acknowledged that “the office of president carries with it a “legal mandate,” but that it does not take away from the seriousness of the jury verdict….’Donald Trump the ordinary citizen,’ ‘Donald Trump, the criminal defendant,’” the judge suggested, “would not be entitled to the protections of the presidency…him from the seriousness of the verdict.”

Keep ReadingShow less