Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

What the FEC can (but mostly cannot) do with only three regulators on the job

Matthew Petersen

FEC Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen resigned last month. Now, with only three members, the commission can no longer carry out many of its basic responsibilities.

The start of September marks a grim new chapter for the Federal Election Commission.

With Vice Chairman Matthew Petersen departing at the end of last month, the commission no longer has the minimum number of members required to carry out most of the FEC's basic responsibilities as the watchdog and regulator of federal campaign finance activity.

There are six seats on the commission, but two of them have been vacant since soon after President Trump took office. With Peterson's resignation, after 11 years on the job, the commission has lost its four-person quorum — and also the potential for the four votes necessary to take even the most anodyne, bipartisan action.


Without a quorum, the FEC cannot:

  • Hold its regular public meetings.
  • Determine violations of campaign finance laws and subsequently penalize or fine candidates or political committees.
  • Conduct its routine audits of presidential candidate fundraising and spending.
  • Issue advisory opinions when politicians or political action committees ask about the boundaries of their behavior.
  • Open new investigations or rule on already existing ones.
  • Vote on new rulings.

Although the FEC is stalled on these core functions, it has not completely shut down. It can still:

  • Receive complaints on infractions and ruling recommendations from the general counsel.
  • Accept contribution and spending reports from political committees.
  • Continue access to and upkeep of campaign finance data through the FEC's website.
  • Assist political committees, the press and the public with campaign finance-related questions.

The FEC will continue in this dysfunctional state until Trump nominates and the Senate confirms at least one new commissioner.

That means the next several crucial months in the 2020 campaign — when the Democratic presidential field will get winnowed and many of the bellwether Senate and House contests will get started — will occur without the candidates or outside groups getting any money-in-politics oversight.

Absent an unanticipated breakthrough, the entire 2020 election could be left vulnerable to campaign finance malefactors, unchecked by even a subdued FEC. (Such was the case for most of 2008, the last time the agency lacked a quorum.)

The president has only chosen one person — Trey Trainor, a Republican and Trump-supporting Texas attorney — but the Republican-majority Senate has done nothing to advance that nomination since it was sent to the Capitol two years ago.

Historically, presidents have typically submitted pairs of candidates, one from each party, for the Senate's consideration. The FEC may not have more than three commissioners of the same party — a requirement that, while designed to make sure the agency would not become a venue for blatant partisan punishment, has instead resulted in almost total gridlock even when all the seats are filled.

Read More

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”:
A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

Liliana Mason

“It’s Probably as Bad as It Can Get”: A Conversation with Lilliana Mason

In the aftermath of the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, the threat of political violence has become a topic of urgent concern in the United States. While public support for political violence remains low—according to Sean Westwood of the Polarization Research Lab, fewer than 2 percent of Americans believe that political murder is acceptable—even isolated incidence of political violence can have a corrosive effect.

According to political scientist Lilliana Mason, political violence amounts to a rejection of democracy. “If a person has used violence to achieve a political goal, then they’ve given up on the democratic process,” says Mason, “Instead, they’re trying to use force to affect government.”

Keep ReadingShow less
We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

We Need To Rethink the Way We Prevent Sexual Violence Against Children

November 20 marks World Children’s Day, marking the adoption of the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child. While great strides have been made in many areas, we are failing one of the declaration’s key provisions: to “protect the child from all forms of sexual exploitation and sexual abuse.”

Sexual violence against children is a public health crisis that keeps escalating, thanks in no small part to the internet, with hundreds of millions of children falling victim to online sexual violence annually. Addressing sexual violence against children only once it materializes is not enough, nor does it respect the rights of the child to be protected from violence. We need to reframe the way we think about child protection and start preventing sexual violence against children holistically.

Keep ReadingShow less
People waving US flags

A deep look at what “American values” truly mean, contrasting liberal, conservative, and MAGA interpretations through the lens of the Declaration and Constitution.

LeoPatrizi/Getty Images

What Are American Values?

There are fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives—and certainly MAGA adherents—on what are “American values.”

But for both liberal and conservative pundits, the term connotes something larger than us, grounding, permanent—of lasting meaning. Because the values of people change as the times change, as the culture changes, and as the political temperament changes. The results of current polls are the values of the moment, not "American values."

Keep ReadingShow less
Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Vote here sign

Caitlin Wilson/AFP via Getty Images

Voting Rights Are Back on Trial...Again

Last month, one of the most consequential cases before the Supreme Court began. Six white Justices, two Black and one Latina took the bench for arguments in Louisiana v. Callais. Addressing a core principle of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: representation. The Court is asked to consider if prohibiting the creation of voting districts that intentionally dilute Black and Brown voting power in turn violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments.

For some, it may be difficult to believe that we’re revisiting this question in 2025. But in truth, the path to voting has been complex since the founding of this country; especially when you template race over the ballot box. America has grappled with the voting question since the end of the Civil War. Through amendments, Congress dropped the term “property” when describing millions of Black Americans now freed from their plantation; then later clarified that we were not only human beings but also Americans before realizing the right to vote could not be assumed in this country. Still, nearly a century would pass before President Lyndon B Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ensuring voting was accessible, free and fair.

Keep ReadingShow less