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

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?
Image generated by IVN staff.

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?

Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”

Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?
Image generated by IVN staff.

Is Politico's Gerrymandering Poll and Analysis Misleading?

Politico published a story last week under the headline “Poll: Americans don’t just tolerate gerrymandering — they back it.”

Still, a close review of the data shows the poll does not support that conclusion. The poll shows that Americans overwhelmingly prefer either an independent redistricting process or a voter-approved process — not partisan map-drawing without voter approval. This is the exact opposite of the narrative Politico’s headline and article promoted. The numbers Politico relied on to justify its headline came only from a subset of partisans.

Keep ReadingShow less
For the Sake of Democracy, We Need to Rethink How We Assess History in Schools

classroom

Photo by Ivan Aleksic on Unsplash

For the Sake of Democracy, We Need to Rethink How We Assess History in Schools

“Which of the following is a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights of the United States Constitution?"

  1. Right to public education
  2. Right to health care
  3. Right to trial by a jury
  4. Right to vote

The above question was labeled “medium” by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) for the 2022 8th-grade U.S. history assessment.

Keep ReadingShow less
People holding microphones and recorders to someone who is speaking.

As the U.S. retires the penny, this essay reflects on lost value—in currency, communication, and truth—highlighting the rising threat of misinformation and the need for real journalism.

Getty Images, Mihajlo Maricic

The End of the Penny — and the Price of Truth in Journalism

232 years ago, the first penny was minted in the United States. And this November, the last pennies rolled off the line, the coin now out of production.

“A penny for your thoughts.” This common idiom, an invitation for another to share what’s on their mind, may go the way of the penny itself, into eventual obsolescence. There are increasingly few who really want to know what’s on anyone else’s mind, unless that mind is in sync with their own.

Keep ReadingShow less